Former Trump campaign adviser acknowledges being part of 2020 'alternate electors' plot
by Sonnet Swire
CNN
Updated 8:59 PM ET, Sat January 22, 2022
(CNN) Boris Epshteyn, an adviser for former President Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, acknowledged Friday that he was part of the effort to prop up so-called "alternate electors" to support Trump in key states.
"Is that something you ever worked on or would support, for example, in Michigan?" MSNBC's Ari Melber asked him Friday night.
"Yes, I was part of the process to make sure there were alternate electors for when, as we hoped, the challenges to the seated electors would be heard, and would be successful," replied Epshteyn, who is a lawyer, after insisting that the electors were indeed "alternate" and not "fraudulent electors."
Then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani supervised the effort, CNN reported earlier this week, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme. It involved helping pro-Trump electors access state Capitol buildings, drafting language for fake electoral certificates to send to the federal government, and finding replacements for electors who refused to go along with the plot. Epshteyn was among those working with Giuliani at the post-election Willard Hotel "command center" that sought to prevent Congress from certifying Biden's election win on January 6, 2021. They were both among multiple people subpoenaed Tuesday by the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack.
Throughout the interview Friday, Epshteyn repeated false claims about election fraud.
He also said that everything he did was legal and cited the 1960 presidential election in Hawaii as a precedent for "alternate" electors. In the 1960 presidential election, Richard Nixon initially led John F. Kennedy by 141 votes in the state, a much narrower margin than any of the contested states in the 2020 election, but Nixon ended up losing the state after a legal recount. While there were multiple panels of electors, it was because the results in the state changed after the recount showed a different result.
"So, Ari, everything that was done was done legally by the Trump legal team, according to the rules, and under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani," he added.
Trump and some of his top advisers publicly encouraged the "alternate electors" scheme in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico.
Last week, Michigan's attorney general asked federal prosecutors to open a criminal investigation into more than a dozen Republicans who submitted false certificates stating they were the state's presidential electors, despite Biden's win in the state.
Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said of the case on MSNBC: "Under state law, I think clearly you have forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense."
When asked Friday by Melber how soon he'll testify before the House committee, Epshteyn replied, "Well, Ari, as they say, we'll see what happens."
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:49 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:06 am
Trump Pushes Protests, Promises Pardons During Texas Rally: Reveals his Fear Indictments are Near
Glenn Kirschner
Jan 30, 2022
In a campaign pledge that is stranger than fiction, former President Donald Trump tells attendees at his Texas rally that, if he's indicted, he wants his supporters to hold massive protests in New York, Georgia and anywhere else he's criminally charged. Trump also indicated that the defendants who are being prosecuted for their participation in the January 6 insurrection are being treated "unfairly" and pledging to pardon them if necessary.
This unhinged and potentially obstructionist rant is a clear tell that Trump believes he is close to being indicted.
**************************
Trump Calls On Massive Protests If Prosecutors Go After Him And Offers Pardons To Jan. 6ers
by S.V. Date
Sat, January 29, 2022, 9:11 PM·
Former President Donald Trump Saturday night called on his followers to stage massive protests in multiple cities should prosecutors act against him. He also said he would offer pardons to those charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol that he incited in a last-gasp attempt to remain in power.
“If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt,” he said to a rally audience in Conroe, Texas, reading from teleprompters set up on either side of his lectern.
A few minutes later, he claimed his followers who stormed the Capitol, assaulting police as they entered, were not being treated “fairly” and that should he run for the White House again and win: “If it requires pardons, we will give them pardons.”
The 80-minute performance, while riddled with Trump’s familiar lies about having had his reelection “stolen” from him in November 2020, was notable for the numerous references to the various investigations into him.
“They’re trying to put me in jail,” he said. “These prosecutors are vicious, horrible people. They’re racists and they’re very sick. They’re mentally sick. They’re going after me without any protection of my rights by the Supreme Court or most other courts.”
New York State Attorney General Letitia James has been conducting a civil probe of his family business, while the district attorney in Manhattan has been running a criminal investigation.
Meanwhile, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, has impaneled a special grand jury just to focus on Trump’s attempt to coerce state officials to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss of that state to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
And the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 has been subpoenaing more and more former and current Trump aides to determine his precise role in that day’s events, while the Department of Justice this past week confirmed that it is investigating at least one element of Trump’s scheme to remain in power: the submission of fake Trump “electors” in states that Biden won.
Trump White House and campaign advisers at the time openly pushed for the fraudulent slates so as to give Vice President Mike Pence the ability to cite the competing slates as reason to declare Trump the winner and award him a second term.
Pence, though, refused to go along with the plan, and instead actively sabotaged the false elector scheme by crafting new language to make sure the fake slates were excluded.
A year ago, Trump became the first U.S. president to refuse to turn over power peacefully to his successor. He spent weeks attacking the legitimacy of the November 2020 contest that he lost. Hours after polls closed and it appeared that Biden would be the winner, Trump stated that he had really won in a “landslide” and that his victory was being “stolen” from him. Those falsehoods continued with a string of failed lawsuits challenging the results in a handful of states.
After the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, making Biden’s win official, Trump instead turned to a last-ditch scheme to pressure his own vice president into handing Trump the election during the pro forma congressional certification of the election results on Jan. 6.
Trump asked his followers to come to Washington that day and told the thousands who showed up that they should march to the Capitol to intimidate Pence into doing what Trump wanted. “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules,” Trump said.
The mob of supporters stormed the building and chanted “Hang Mike Pence” when the vice president did not do Trump’s bidding. The riot left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer, and four other officers took their own lives in the following weeks and months.
Though the House impeached Trump for inciting the attack, all but seven Senate Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, chose not to convict him ― thereby letting Trump continue his political career even as he is the subject of several investigations.
Glenn Kirschner
Jan 30, 2022
In a campaign pledge that is stranger than fiction, former President Donald Trump tells attendees at his Texas rally that, if he's indicted, he wants his supporters to hold massive protests in New York, Georgia and anywhere else he's criminally charged. Trump also indicated that the defendants who are being prosecuted for their participation in the January 6 insurrection are being treated "unfairly" and pledging to pardon them if necessary.
This unhinged and potentially obstructionist rant is a clear tell that Trump believes he is close to being indicted.
**************************
Trump Calls On Massive Protests If Prosecutors Go After Him And Offers Pardons To Jan. 6ers
by S.V. Date
Sat, January 29, 2022, 9:11 PM·
Former President Donald Trump Saturday night called on his followers to stage massive protests in multiple cities should prosecutors act against him. He also said he would offer pardons to those charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol that he incited in a last-gasp attempt to remain in power.
“If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt,” he said to a rally audience in Conroe, Texas, reading from teleprompters set up on either side of his lectern.
A few minutes later, he claimed his followers who stormed the Capitol, assaulting police as they entered, were not being treated “fairly” and that should he run for the White House again and win: “If it requires pardons, we will give them pardons.”
The 80-minute performance, while riddled with Trump’s familiar lies about having had his reelection “stolen” from him in November 2020, was notable for the numerous references to the various investigations into him.
“They’re trying to put me in jail,” he said. “These prosecutors are vicious, horrible people. They’re racists and they’re very sick. They’re mentally sick. They’re going after me without any protection of my rights by the Supreme Court or most other courts.”
New York State Attorney General Letitia James has been conducting a civil probe of his family business, while the district attorney in Manhattan has been running a criminal investigation.
Meanwhile, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, has impaneled a special grand jury just to focus on Trump’s attempt to coerce state officials to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss of that state to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
And the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 has been subpoenaing more and more former and current Trump aides to determine his precise role in that day’s events, while the Department of Justice this past week confirmed that it is investigating at least one element of Trump’s scheme to remain in power: the submission of fake Trump “electors” in states that Biden won.
Trump White House and campaign advisers at the time openly pushed for the fraudulent slates so as to give Vice President Mike Pence the ability to cite the competing slates as reason to declare Trump the winner and award him a second term.
Pence, though, refused to go along with the plan, and instead actively sabotaged the false elector scheme by crafting new language to make sure the fake slates were excluded.
A year ago, Trump became the first U.S. president to refuse to turn over power peacefully to his successor. He spent weeks attacking the legitimacy of the November 2020 contest that he lost. Hours after polls closed and it appeared that Biden would be the winner, Trump stated that he had really won in a “landslide” and that his victory was being “stolen” from him. Those falsehoods continued with a string of failed lawsuits challenging the results in a handful of states.
After the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, making Biden’s win official, Trump instead turned to a last-ditch scheme to pressure his own vice president into handing Trump the election during the pro forma congressional certification of the election results on Jan. 6.
Trump asked his followers to come to Washington that day and told the thousands who showed up that they should march to the Capitol to intimidate Pence into doing what Trump wanted. “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules,” Trump said.
The mob of supporters stormed the building and chanted “Hang Mike Pence” when the vice president did not do Trump’s bidding. The riot left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer, and four other officers took their own lives in the following weeks and months.
Though the House impeached Trump for inciting the attack, all but seven Senate Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, chose not to convict him ― thereby letting Trump continue his political career even as he is the subject of several investigations.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Feb 01, 2022 8:38 am
Will Trump's Written Confession Regarding Pence "Overturning" Election Prod DOJ into Action?
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Jan 31, 2022
In yet another display of overt criminality, former President Donald Trump issued a written statement acknowledging that he wanted Vice President Mike Pence to "overturn" the presidential election.
This video discusses:
1. Why Trump likely made this admission
2. Why his claim that Pence had the authority to "overturn" the election's
result is unconvincing and
3. What the Department of Justice should do as a result of Trump's
admission
Here is the link to my MSNBC Daily article I discuss in the video:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/will-tr...
**************
Will Trump run in 2024? How the DOJ could boost his bid: If the Justice Department doesn’t prosecute Trump and he runs for re-election in 2024, we can expect him to talk about his “confirmed innocence” at every rally.
by Glenn Kirschner
MSNBC Opinion Columnist
Jan. 31, 2022, 8:14 AM MST
In the nearly 13 months since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, hundreds of Americans — the foot soldiers of the insurrection — have been criminally indicted. However, not a single member of the insurrection’s suspected command structure, the planners and plotters, the organizers and funders, the orchestrators and inciters, has been charged. And it’s still unclear whether any ever will be. This inaction from our very own Department of Justice could enable future attacks on our democracy.
Donald Trump is famous for, and adept at, taking a loss and spinning it as a win. When phone logs heavily suggested he had extorted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he told Americans his conversation with Zelenskyy was “perfect.” When he was impeached after that perfect call, he claimed he was the victim of a politically motivated “witch hunt.” When Robert Mueller’s report was released, he crowed about his “complete and total exoneration.”
Trump said his recorded phone call urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to (fraudulently) declare him the winner of the election in Georgia may have been “even more perfect” than his call with Zelenskyy.
On Saturday, Trump continued to hint that he may run again in 2024, saying at a Texas rally that if he wins, he would consider pardons for convicted Jan. 6 rioters. And given Trump’s obvious patterns and proclivities, there is little doubt how a Trump campaign would spin things in the event the Justice Department declines to indict him.
To be clear, the Justice Department is criminally investigating the insurrection, having indicted more than 700 people. Most recently, the Justice Department upped the criminal ante by indicting 11 alleged members of the Oath Keepers organization on seditious conspiracy charges. On Jan. 5, Attorney General Merrick Garland addressed the nation, saying the Justice Department would hold perpetrators accountable “at any level ... whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on democracy.” Notably, he also referred to Watergate in what seemed to be a not-so-subtle reminder that high-level government officials were held accountable for the series of crimes that unfolded in the aftermath of the break-in at the Watergate Hotel.
But while Garland’s lofty words and vague promises provide some atmospheric reassurances, we have yet to see any accountability at that top level.
I hasten to add that criminal investigations are supposed to be conducted in secret, shielded from public view unless and until indictments are issued. But the reality is once federal prosecutors dig into a criminal investigation in earnest, particularly when they begin issuing grand jury subpoenas, it is nearly impossible to keep the investigation from seeping into the public square.
This merits a short discussion of why not all subpoenas are created equal. We have seen much reporting recently about all kinds of subpoenas: congressional subpoenas like those being issued by the House’s Jan. 6 committee; civil subpoenas issued for Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump by New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of her civil fraud investigation; the possibility of subpoenas’ being issued by a Georgia special grand jury investigating Trump’s possible violations of Georgia state election laws; etc.
Unfortunately, and alarmingly, we have seen some Trump loyalists disregard, defy and even mock congressional subpoenas. Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, upon being subpoenaed by the House select committee, actually tweeted, “The committee is just mad they can’t date me.” Worse than the juvenile response of Ellis, other Trump associates, like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, have simply refused to appear, resulting in Bannon’s and Meadows’ being referred by Congress to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress.
It has become painfully obvious that congressional subpoenas are largely toothless. (Although arguably Congress extracted its own teeth by refusing to use its lawful power of inherent contempt, as I wrote about in an earlier piece.)
Civil subpoenas present their own challenges on the accountability front, not to mention opportunities for nefarious litigants to delay the enforcement process. For example, New York’s attorney general and the Trumps are battling in court over the legitimacy and enforceability of those subpoenas. These court cases can drag on for months or more, making timely accountability a significant challenge.
And how about the subpoena power being sought by the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia? Fani Willis had to ask a co-equal branch of the Georgia government, the judiciary, for permission to impanel a special grand jury just so she would have the ability to subpoena witnesses who refuse to cooperate voluntarily. Brad Raffensperger apparently is one of them.
The mother of all subpoenas is the federal grand jury subpoena. As a former career federal prosecutor, I issued more subpoenas than I can count. Witnesses generally don’t ignore, defy or mock federal grand jury subpoenas, because ignoring them can result in bench warrants and arrest by the U.S. Marshals. If a witness asserts a privilege, we head straight to the chief judge’s courtroom to litigate the privilege in real time and resolve the matter. Compare that timeline (days, or occasionally weeks) to former White House counsel Don McGahn’s congressional subpoena battle, which took over two years.
But the reality of the federal criminal justice system is that, once witnesses are subpoenaed for the grand jury, the investigation is very likely to become public, because of media investigations, lawyers or the witnesses themselves. (Grand jury secrecy rules prohibit prosecutors from publicly disclosing grand jury matters, but the witnesses aren’t subject to any such prohibition.) And, of course, there can also be (inappropriate) leaks from FBI agents, federal prosecutors or Justice Department staff members.
All of which is to say the lack of even whispers of a federal criminal investigation into Trump or other high-ranking government officials or political figures is dangerous and damaging. As we saw in Texas over the weekend, it enables Trump and his associates to continue to push their big lie with impunity.
And it enables some segments of the population to confirm Trump and Co.’s conclusion that they truly did nothing wrong. After all, we’ve now known about their conduct for more than a year, and no charges have been forthcoming.
Ultimately, if the Justice Department doesn’t prosecute Trump and he runs for re-election in 2024, we can expect him to talk about his “confirmed innocence” at every rally. Trump will say the DOJ has had no problems with his actions since 2016. He will boast that the DOJ's considered decision not to bring a single criminal charge against him is proof positive that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And if the need ever arises, he may have no qualms about trying it all again.
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Jan 31, 2022
In yet another display of overt criminality, former President Donald Trump issued a written statement acknowledging that he wanted Vice President Mike Pence to "overturn" the presidential election.
This video discusses:
1. Why Trump likely made this admission
2. Why his claim that Pence had the authority to "overturn" the election's
result is unconvincing and
3. What the Department of Justice should do as a result of Trump's
admission
Here is the link to my MSNBC Daily article I discuss in the video:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/will-tr...
**************
Will Trump run in 2024? How the DOJ could boost his bid: If the Justice Department doesn’t prosecute Trump and he runs for re-election in 2024, we can expect him to talk about his “confirmed innocence” at every rally.
by Glenn Kirschner
MSNBC Opinion Columnist
Jan. 31, 2022, 8:14 AM MST
In the nearly 13 months since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, hundreds of Americans — the foot soldiers of the insurrection — have been criminally indicted. However, not a single member of the insurrection’s suspected command structure, the planners and plotters, the organizers and funders, the orchestrators and inciters, has been charged. And it’s still unclear whether any ever will be. This inaction from our very own Department of Justice could enable future attacks on our democracy.
Donald Trump is famous for, and adept at, taking a loss and spinning it as a win.
Donald Trump is famous for, and adept at, taking a loss and spinning it as a win. When phone logs heavily suggested he had extorted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he told Americans his conversation with Zelenskyy was “perfect.” When he was impeached after that perfect call, he claimed he was the victim of a politically motivated “witch hunt.” When Robert Mueller’s report was released, he crowed about his “complete and total exoneration.”
Trump said his recorded phone call urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to (fraudulently) declare him the winner of the election in Georgia may have been “even more perfect” than his call with Zelenskyy.
On Saturday, Trump continued to hint that he may run again in 2024, saying at a Texas rally that if he wins, he would consider pardons for convicted Jan. 6 rioters. And given Trump’s obvious patterns and proclivities, there is little doubt how a Trump campaign would spin things in the event the Justice Department declines to indict him.
To be clear, the Justice Department is criminally investigating the insurrection, having indicted more than 700 people. Most recently, the Justice Department upped the criminal ante by indicting 11 alleged members of the Oath Keepers organization on seditious conspiracy charges. On Jan. 5, Attorney General Merrick Garland addressed the nation, saying the Justice Department would hold perpetrators accountable “at any level ... whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on democracy.” Notably, he also referred to Watergate in what seemed to be a not-so-subtle reminder that high-level government officials were held accountable for the series of crimes that unfolded in the aftermath of the break-in at the Watergate Hotel.
But while Garland’s lofty words and vague promises provide some atmospheric reassurances, we have yet to see any accountability at that top level.
I hasten to add that criminal investigations are supposed to be conducted in secret, shielded from public view unless and until indictments are issued. But the reality is once federal prosecutors dig into a criminal investigation in earnest, particularly when they begin issuing grand jury subpoenas, it is nearly impossible to keep the investigation from seeping into the public square.
This merits a short discussion of why not all subpoenas are created equal. We have seen much reporting recently about all kinds of subpoenas: congressional subpoenas like those being issued by the House’s Jan. 6 committee; civil subpoenas issued for Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump by New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of her civil fraud investigation; the possibility of subpoenas’ being issued by a Georgia special grand jury investigating Trump’s possible violations of Georgia state election laws; etc.
Unfortunately, and alarmingly, we have seen some Trump loyalists disregard, defy and even mock congressional subpoenas. Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, upon being subpoenaed by the House select committee, actually tweeted, “The committee is just mad they can’t date me.” Worse than the juvenile response of Ellis, other Trump associates, like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, have simply refused to appear, resulting in Bannon’s and Meadows’ being referred by Congress to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress.
It has become painfully obvious that congressional subpoenas are largely toothless. (Although arguably Congress extracted its own teeth by refusing to use its lawful power of inherent contempt, as I wrote about in an earlier piece.)
Civil subpoenas present their own challenges on the accountability front, not to mention opportunities for nefarious litigants to delay the enforcement process. For example, New York’s attorney general and the Trumps are battling in court over the legitimacy and enforceability of those subpoenas. These court cases can drag on for months or more, making timely accountability a significant challenge.
And how about the subpoena power being sought by the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia? Fani Willis had to ask a co-equal branch of the Georgia government, the judiciary, for permission to impanel a special grand jury just so she would have the ability to subpoena witnesses who refuse to cooperate voluntarily. Brad Raffensperger apparently is one of them.
The mother of all subpoenas is the federal grand jury subpoena. As a former career federal prosecutor, I issued more subpoenas than I can count. Witnesses generally don’t ignore, defy or mock federal grand jury subpoenas, because ignoring them can result in bench warrants and arrest by the U.S. Marshals. If a witness asserts a privilege, we head straight to the chief judge’s courtroom to litigate the privilege in real time and resolve the matter. Compare that timeline (days, or occasionally weeks) to former White House counsel Don McGahn’s congressional subpoena battle, which took over two years.
But the reality of the federal criminal justice system is that, once witnesses are subpoenaed for the grand jury, the investigation is very likely to become public, because of media investigations, lawyers or the witnesses themselves. (Grand jury secrecy rules prohibit prosecutors from publicly disclosing grand jury matters, but the witnesses aren’t subject to any such prohibition.) And, of course, there can also be (inappropriate) leaks from FBI agents, federal prosecutors or Justice Department staff members.
All of which is to say the lack of even whispers of a federal criminal investigation into Trump or other high-ranking government officials or political figures is dangerous.
All of which is to say the lack of even whispers of a federal criminal investigation into Trump or other high-ranking government officials or political figures is dangerous and damaging. As we saw in Texas over the weekend, it enables Trump and his associates to continue to push their big lie with impunity.
And it enables some segments of the population to confirm Trump and Co.’s conclusion that they truly did nothing wrong. After all, we’ve now known about their conduct for more than a year, and no charges have been forthcoming.
Ultimately, if the Justice Department doesn’t prosecute Trump and he runs for re-election in 2024, we can expect him to talk about his “confirmed innocence” at every rally. Trump will say the DOJ has had no problems with his actions since 2016. He will boast that the DOJ's considered decision not to bring a single criminal charge against him is proof positive that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And if the need ever arises, he may have no qualms about trying it all again.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:05 am
Trump Had Role in Weighing Proposals to Seize Voting Machines: New accounts show that the former president was more directly involved than previously known in plans developed by outside advisers to use national security agencies to seek evidence of fraud.
by Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater
New York Times
Jan. 31, 2022
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
Six weeks after Election Day, with his hold on power slipping, President Donald J. Trump directed his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to make a remarkable call. Mr. Trump wanted him to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states, three people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Giuliani did so, calling the department’s acting deputy secretary, who said he lacked the authority to audit or impound the machines.
Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Giuliani to make that inquiry after rejecting a separate effort by his outside advisers to have the Pentagon take control of the machines. And the outreach to the Department of Homeland Security came not long after Mr. Trump, in an Oval Office meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr, raised the possibility of whether the Justice Department could seize the machines, a previously undisclosed suggestion that Mr. Barr immediately shot down.
The new accounts show that Mr. Trump was more directly involved than previously known in exploring proposals to use his national security agencies to seize voting machines as he grasped unsuccessfully for evidence of fraud that would help him reverse his defeat in the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the episodes.
The existence of proposals to use at least three federal departments to assist Mr. Trump’s attempt to stay in power has been publicly known. The proposals involving the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security were codified by advisers in the form of draft executive orders.
But the new accounts provide fresh insight into how the former president considered and to some degree pushed the plans, which would have taken the United States into uncharted territory by using federal authority to seize control of the voting systems run by states on baseless grounds of widespread voting fraud.
The people familiar with the matter were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.
The accounts about the voting machines emerged after a weekend when Mr. Trump declared at a rally in Texas that he might pardon people charged in connection with the storming of the Capitol last Jan. 6 if he were re-elected. In a statement issued after the rally, Mr. Trump also suggested that his vice president, Mike Pence, could have personally “overturned the election” by refusing to count delegates to the Electoral College who had vowed to cast their votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The new information helps to flesh out how the draft executive orders to seize voting machines came into existence and points in particular to the key role played by a retired Army colonel named Phil Waldron.
According to people familiar with the accounts, Mr. Waldron, shortly after the election, began telling associates that he had found irregularities in vote results that he felt were suggestive of fraud. He then came up with the idea of having a federal agency like the military or the Department of Homeland Security confiscate the machines to preserve evidence.
Mr. Waldron first proposed the notion of the Pentagon’s involvement to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, whom he says he served with in the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The plans were among an array of options that were placed before Mr. Trump in the tumultuous days and weeks that followed the election, developed by an ad hoc group of lawyers like Sidney Powell and other allies including Mr. Flynn and Mr. Waldron. That group often found itself at odds with Mr. Giuliani and his longtime associate Bernard Kerik, as well as with Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and his team.
Around the same time that Mr. Trump brought up the possibility of having the Justice Department seize the voting machines, for example, he also tried to persuade state lawmakers in contested states like Michigan and Pennsylvania to use local law enforcement agencies to take control of them, people familiar with the matter said. The state lawmakers refused to go along with the plan.
The meeting with Mr. Barr took place in mid- to late November when Mr. Trump raised the idea of whether the Justice Department could be used to seize machines, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump told Mr. Barr that his lawyers had told him that the department had the power to seize machines as evidence of fraud.
Mr. Trump mentioned a specific state that had used machines built by Dominion Voting Systems, where his lawyers believed there had been fraud, although it is unclear which state Mr. Trump was referring to. Mr. Barr, who had been briefed extensively at that point by federal law enforcement officials about how the theories being pushed by Mr. Trump’s legal team about the Dominion machines were unfounded, told Mr. Trump that the Justice Department had no basis for seizing the machines because there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
It was only after several early options were exhausted that Mr. Waldron pitched the idea of using other parts of the federal government to seize the machines to both Mr. Giuliani and members of the Trump legal team, and to Mr. Flynn and his own associates, including Ms. Powell and Patrick Byrne, a wealthy business executive who funded many of the efforts to challenge the election.
Mr. Waldron, who owns a bar and distillery outside Austin, Texas, was previously best known for having circulated a 38-page PowerPoint presentation to lawmakers and White House aides that was filled with extreme plans to overturn the election.
Mr. Giuliani was vehemently opposed to the idea of the military taking part in the seizure of machines, according to two people familiar with the matter. The conflict between him and his legal team, and Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne came to a dramatic head on Dec. 18, 2020, during a meeting with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office.
At the meeting, Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell presented Mr. Trump with a copy of the draft executive order authorizing the military to oversee the seizure of machines. After reading it, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Giuliani to the Oval Office, according to one person familiar with the matter. When Mr. Giuliani read the draft order, he told Mr. Trump that the military could be used only if there was clear-cut evidence of foreign interference in the election.
Ms. Powell, who had spent the past month filing lawsuits claiming that China and other countries had hacked into voting machines, said she had such evidence, the person said. But Mr. Giuliani was adamant that the military should not be mobilized, the person said, and Mr. Trump ultimately heeded his advice.
Shortly after the Oval Office meeting, Mr. Waldron amended the draft executive order, suggesting that if the Defense Department could not oversee the seizure of machines then the Department of Homeland Security could, the person said.
Around that time, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Giuliani to call Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, to ask about the viability of the proposal, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Cuccinelli said that homeland security officials could not take part in the plan.
All of this was playing out amid open acrimony among White House aides and outside advisers about how best — and how far — to proceed with efforts to pursue Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud in the election. That same month, during a meeting on another matter, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Cuccinelli what he thought of appointing a special counsel to investigate election fraud. Mr. Cuccinelli, according to two people briefed on the conversation, said it was not a good idea for a variety of reasons.
When Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne arrived at the White House to discuss their plan to use the military to seize voting machines, they were not let into the Oval Office by a typical gatekeeper, like Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff. Rather, they were escorted in by Garrett Ziegler, a young aide to another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, according to Mr. Ziegler’s account.
“I waved in General Flynn and Sidney Powell on the Friday night of the 18th — for which Mark Meadows’s office revoked my guest privileges,” Mr. Ziegler said on a podcast, adding that he had done so because he was “frustrated with the current counsel” Mr. Trump was getting.
Even Mr. Giuliani, who had spent weeks peddling some of the most outrageous claims about election fraud, felt that the idea of bringing in the military was beyond the pale.
After Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell left the Oval Office, according to a person familiar with the matter, Mr. Giuliani predicted that the plans they were proposing were going to get Mr. Trump impeached.
Alan Feuer covers courts and criminal justice for the Metro desk. He has written about mobsters, jails, police misconduct, wrongful convictions, government corruption and El Chapo, the jailed chief of the Sinaloa drug cartel. He joined The Times in 1999. @alanfeuer
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike
Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater
*********************
Trump's Incriminating Outburst: "Pence Should be Investigated for NOT Overturning the Election"
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Feb 1, 2022
Former President Donald Trump's desperation is showing. As the investigative circle tightens around him, he continues to issue statements that are directly and deeply incriminating. First, he finally admits that he wanted Mike Pence to "overturn" the results of the presidential election and corruptly declare him the winner. Then, upon learning that Pence's Chief of Staff, Marc Short, is cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, Trump issues another statement demanding that Mike Pence be investigated for NOT overturning the election's results.
by Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater
New York Times
Jan. 31, 2022
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.
Six weeks after Election Day, with his hold on power slipping, President Donald J. Trump directed his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to make a remarkable call. Mr. Trump wanted him to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states, three people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Giuliani did so, calling the department’s acting deputy secretary, who said he lacked the authority to audit or impound the machines.
Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Giuliani to make that inquiry after rejecting a separate effort by his outside advisers to have the Pentagon take control of the machines. And the outreach to the Department of Homeland Security came not long after Mr. Trump, in an Oval Office meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr, raised the possibility of whether the Justice Department could seize the machines, a previously undisclosed suggestion that Mr. Barr immediately shot down.
The new accounts show that Mr. Trump was more directly involved than previously known in exploring proposals to use his national security agencies to seize voting machines as he grasped unsuccessfully for evidence of fraud that would help him reverse his defeat in the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the episodes.
The existence of proposals to use at least three federal departments to assist Mr. Trump’s attempt to stay in power has been publicly known. The proposals involving the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security were codified by advisers in the form of draft executive orders.
But the new accounts provide fresh insight into how the former president considered and to some degree pushed the plans, which would have taken the United States into uncharted territory by using federal authority to seize control of the voting systems run by states on baseless grounds of widespread voting fraud.
The people familiar with the matter were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.
The accounts about the voting machines emerged after a weekend when Mr. Trump declared at a rally in Texas that he might pardon people charged in connection with the storming of the Capitol last Jan. 6 if he were re-elected. In a statement issued after the rally, Mr. Trump also suggested that his vice president, Mike Pence, could have personally “overturned the election” by refusing to count delegates to the Electoral College who had vowed to cast their votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The new information helps to flesh out how the draft executive orders to seize voting machines came into existence and points in particular to the key role played by a retired Army colonel named Phil Waldron.
According to people familiar with the accounts, Mr. Waldron, shortly after the election, began telling associates that he had found irregularities in vote results that he felt were suggestive of fraud. He then came up with the idea of having a federal agency like the military or the Department of Homeland Security confiscate the machines to preserve evidence.
Mr. Waldron first proposed the notion of the Pentagon’s involvement to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, whom he says he served with in the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The plans were among an array of options that were placed before Mr. Trump in the tumultuous days and weeks that followed the election, developed by an ad hoc group of lawyers like Sidney Powell and other allies including Mr. Flynn and Mr. Waldron. That group often found itself at odds with Mr. Giuliani and his longtime associate Bernard Kerik, as well as with Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and his team.
Around the same time that Mr. Trump brought up the possibility of having the Justice Department seize the voting machines, for example, he also tried to persuade state lawmakers in contested states like Michigan and Pennsylvania to use local law enforcement agencies to take control of them, people familiar with the matter said. The state lawmakers refused to go along with the plan.
The meeting with Mr. Barr took place in mid- to late November when Mr. Trump raised the idea of whether the Justice Department could be used to seize machines, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump told Mr. Barr that his lawyers had told him that the department had the power to seize machines as evidence of fraud.
Mr. Trump mentioned a specific state that had used machines built by Dominion Voting Systems, where his lawyers believed there had been fraud, although it is unclear which state Mr. Trump was referring to. Mr. Barr, who had been briefed extensively at that point by federal law enforcement officials about how the theories being pushed by Mr. Trump’s legal team about the Dominion machines were unfounded, told Mr. Trump that the Justice Department had no basis for seizing the machines because there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
It was only after several early options were exhausted that Mr. Waldron pitched the idea of using other parts of the federal government to seize the machines to both Mr. Giuliani and members of the Trump legal team, and to Mr. Flynn and his own associates, including Ms. Powell and Patrick Byrne, a wealthy business executive who funded many of the efforts to challenge the election.
Mr. Waldron, who owns a bar and distillery outside Austin, Texas, was previously best known for having circulated a 38-page PowerPoint presentation to lawmakers and White House aides that was filled with extreme plans to overturn the election.
Mr. Giuliani was vehemently opposed to the idea of the military taking part in the seizure of machines, according to two people familiar with the matter. The conflict between him and his legal team, and Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne came to a dramatic head on Dec. 18, 2020, during a meeting with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office.
At the meeting, Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell presented Mr. Trump with a copy of the draft executive order authorizing the military to oversee the seizure of machines. After reading it, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Giuliani to the Oval Office, according to one person familiar with the matter. When Mr. Giuliani read the draft order, he told Mr. Trump that the military could be used only if there was clear-cut evidence of foreign interference in the election.
Ms. Powell, who had spent the past month filing lawsuits claiming that China and other countries had hacked into voting machines, said she had such evidence, the person said. But Mr. Giuliani was adamant that the military should not be mobilized, the person said, and Mr. Trump ultimately heeded his advice.
Shortly after the Oval Office meeting, Mr. Waldron amended the draft executive order, suggesting that if the Defense Department could not oversee the seizure of machines then the Department of Homeland Security could, the person said.
Around that time, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Giuliani to call Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, to ask about the viability of the proposal, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Cuccinelli said that homeland security officials could not take part in the plan.
All of this was playing out amid open acrimony among White House aides and outside advisers about how best — and how far — to proceed with efforts to pursue Mr. Trump’s claims of fraud in the election. That same month, during a meeting on another matter, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Cuccinelli what he thought of appointing a special counsel to investigate election fraud. Mr. Cuccinelli, according to two people briefed on the conversation, said it was not a good idea for a variety of reasons.
When Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne arrived at the White House to discuss their plan to use the military to seize voting machines, they were not let into the Oval Office by a typical gatekeeper, like Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff. Rather, they were escorted in by Garrett Ziegler, a young aide to another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, according to Mr. Ziegler’s account.
“I waved in General Flynn and Sidney Powell on the Friday night of the 18th — for which Mark Meadows’s office revoked my guest privileges,” Mr. Ziegler said on a podcast, adding that he had done so because he was “frustrated with the current counsel” Mr. Trump was getting.
Even Mr. Giuliani, who had spent weeks peddling some of the most outrageous claims about election fraud, felt that the idea of bringing in the military was beyond the pale.
After Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell left the Oval Office, according to a person familiar with the matter, Mr. Giuliani predicted that the plans they were proposing were going to get Mr. Trump impeached.
Alan Feuer covers courts and criminal justice for the Metro desk. He has written about mobsters, jails, police misconduct, wrongful convictions, government corruption and El Chapo, the jailed chief of the Sinaloa drug cartel. He joined The Times in 1999. @alanfeuer
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMike
Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater
*********************
Trump's Incriminating Outburst: "Pence Should be Investigated for NOT Overturning the Election"
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Feb 1, 2022
Former President Donald Trump's desperation is showing. As the investigative circle tightens around him, he continues to issue statements that are directly and deeply incriminating. First, he finally admits that he wanted Mike Pence to "overturn" the results of the presidential election and corruptly declare him the winner. Then, upon learning that Pence's Chief of Staff, Marc Short, is cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, Trump issues another statement demanding that Mike Pence be investigated for NOT overturning the election's results.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:22 am
Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results. Not clear if or how election law proposed by Arizona Rep. Shawnna Bolick would work in practice
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Jan 30, 2021 Updated Feb 13, 2021
Rep. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, did not respond to requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.
The proposal by Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court.
Included would be allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.
That would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint Bolick, serves.
But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.
LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
It’s not clear exactly how that would work.
Congress counts each state’s electoral votes and announces two weeks before Inauguration Day who was elected, which is Shawnna Bolick’s proposed deadline for state lawmakers to make a final decision whether to change the electoral tally.
Absent Congress reconvening to recount the tally — something that may not be legal under federal law — there is no way to recount or change the vote.
Potentially more problematic, Bolick’s House Bill 2720 says lawmakers could take that action “without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter.”
That by itself would appear to violate the Arizona Constitution, which spells out when the Legislature is, in fact, in session and when it can act.
More practically, Bolick’s proposal does not explain how there even could be a majority vote if there is no formal, on-the-record vote at a nonexistent legislative session.
REACTION IS SWIFT
Bolick did not respond to multiple requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
But Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wasted no time in reacting, calling the proposal “breathtaking.”
“So really, we should just get rid of the presidential election altogether?” Hobbs said in a Twitter message. “In reality, that’s what this bill would do.”
Julie Erfle, a Democratic political consultant, was a bit more succinct, saying that Bolick “gives AZ voters the middle finger.”
NOT THE FIRST EFFORT
Bolick is not the first Republican to advance the argument that lawmakers can trump voter decisions.
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, has repeatedly argued that the U.S. Constitution gives Arizona lawmakers “plenary authority” to determine who gets the state’s electoral votes.
But the Legislature was not in session and House Speaker Russell Bowers rebuffed his efforts to call a hearing of the House Federal Relations Committee, which Finchem chaired last year, to look at ways the 2020 election could have been tainted. Bowers said state law is clear that the electors are selected based on the certified voter count.
So Finchem and others decided to conduct their own unofficial hearing away from the state Capitol in late November to hear allegations from Donald Trump’s legal team that the election was rigged. That event had all the legal authority and effect of a political rally.
Bolick seeks to get around that with her proposed law specifically authorizing a legislative override.
MORE MONITORING WOULD BE REQUIRED
Aside from legislative veto of election results, Bolick’s HB 2720 seeks to put into statute other ways that election results can be monitored.
For example, it would require counties to create digitized images of all ballots, which would be available to the public to review.
She also wants the public to be able to monitor what happens when a ballot cannot be read by tallying equipment, perhaps because of stray marks or because the individual voted for more than one candidate for an office.
That normally involves election workers from both parties reviewing the ballot, attempting to determine the voter’s intent, and creating a new ballot that could be fed through the machine. Bolick wants the images of these duplicated ballots posted on a county website within 24 hours.
BARRING JUDGES FROM RULING WITHOUT JURIES
She also wants to expand an existing law that now allows for up to three observers representing candidates or political parties at the counting center. HB 2720 would require there also be at least 10 individuals from the general public who are registered voters in the county.
Then there’s the issue of how courts have to handle election challenges.
There were a series of lawsuits following now President Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump in Arizona. Those included one by Kelli Ward, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, who contended there were mistakes made in the process of duplicating ballots.
A trial judge agreed to have a review of a random sample of 1,626 of these duplicated ballots, which did turn up errors.
But the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewing that case, said the error rate was no more than 0.55%.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said extrapolating that out over the 27,869 ballots that had been duplicated would have gained Trump no more than 153 votes, which would not have affected the outcome of the Arizona election that Biden won by more than 10,000 votes.
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Biden’s win in the state.
Bolick’s bill would have required the case to go to a jury regardless of merits and precluded the trial judge — and, ultimately the Supreme Court — from concluding ahead of a jury trial that the case had no legal merit or practical chance to succeed.
The same would apply to challenges to future election returns if her bill becomes law.
*********************
Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results. Not clear if or how election law proposed by Arizona Rep. Shawnna Bolick would work in practice
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Jan 30, 2021 Updated Feb 13, 2021
Rep. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, did not respond to requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.
The proposal by Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court.
Included would be allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.
That would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint Bolick, serves.
But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.
LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
It’s not clear exactly how that would work.
Congress counts each state’s electoral votes and announces two weeks before Inauguration Day who was elected, which is Shawnna Bolick’s proposed deadline for state lawmakers to make a final decision whether to change the electoral tally.
Absent Congress reconvening to recount the tally — something that may not be legal under federal law — there is no way to recount or change the vote.
Potentially more problematic, Bolick’s House Bill 2720 says lawmakers could take that action “without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter.”
That by itself would appear to violate the Arizona Constitution, which spells out when the Legislature is, in fact, in session and when it can act.
More practically, Bolick’s proposal does not explain how there even could be a majority vote if there is no formal, on-the-record vote at a nonexistent legislative session.
REACTION IS SWIFT
Bolick did not respond to multiple requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
But Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wasted no time in reacting, calling the proposal “breathtaking.”
“So really, we should just get rid of the presidential election altogether?” Hobbs said in a Twitter message. “In reality, that’s what this bill would do.”
Julie Erfle, a Democratic political consultant, was a bit more succinct, saying that Bolick “gives AZ voters the middle finger.”
NOT THE FIRST EFFORT
Bolick is not the first Republican to advance the argument that lawmakers can trump voter decisions.
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, has repeatedly argued that the U.S. Constitution gives Arizona lawmakers “plenary authority” to determine who gets the state’s electoral votes.
But the Legislature was not in session and House Speaker Russell Bowers rebuffed his efforts to call a hearing of the House Federal Relations Committee, which Finchem chaired last year, to look at ways the 2020 election could have been tainted. Bowers said state law is clear that the electors are selected based on the certified voter count.
So Finchem and others decided to conduct their own unofficial hearing away from the state Capitol in late November to hear allegations from Donald Trump’s legal team that the election was rigged. That event had all the legal authority and effect of a political rally.
Bolick seeks to get around that with her proposed law specifically authorizing a legislative override.
MORE MONITORING WOULD BE REQUIRED
Aside from legislative veto of election results, Bolick’s HB 2720 seeks to put into statute other ways that election results can be monitored.
For example, it would require counties to create digitized images of all ballots, which would be available to the public to review.
She also wants the public to be able to monitor what happens when a ballot cannot be read by tallying equipment, perhaps because of stray marks or because the individual voted for more than one candidate for an office.
That normally involves election workers from both parties reviewing the ballot, attempting to determine the voter’s intent, and creating a new ballot that could be fed through the machine. Bolick wants the images of these duplicated ballots posted on a county website within 24 hours.
BARRING JUDGES FROM RULING WITHOUT JURIES
She also wants to expand an existing law that now allows for up to three observers representing candidates or political parties at the counting center. HB 2720 would require there also be at least 10 individuals from the general public who are registered voters in the county.
Then there’s the issue of how courts have to handle election challenges.
There were a series of lawsuits following now President Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump in Arizona. Those included one by Kelli Ward, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, who contended there were mistakes made in the process of duplicating ballots.
A trial judge agreed to have a review of a random sample of 1,626 of these duplicated ballots, which did turn up errors.
But the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewing that case, said the error rate was no more than 0.55%.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said extrapolating that out over the 27,869 ballots that had been duplicated would have gained Trump no more than 153 votes, which would not have affected the outcome of the Arizona election that Biden won by more than 10,000 votes.
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Biden’s win in the state.
Bolick’s bill would have required the case to go to a jury regardless of merits and precluded the trial judge — and, ultimately the Supreme Court — from concluding ahead of a jury trial that the case had no legal merit or practical chance to succeed.
The same would apply to challenges to future election returns if her bill becomes law.
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Jan 30, 2021 Updated Feb 13, 2021
Rep. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, did not respond to requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.
The proposal by Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court.
Included would be allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.
That would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint Bolick, serves.
But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.
LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
It’s not clear exactly how that would work.
Congress counts each state’s electoral votes and announces two weeks before Inauguration Day who was elected, which is Shawnna Bolick’s proposed deadline for state lawmakers to make a final decision whether to change the electoral tally.
Absent Congress reconvening to recount the tally — something that may not be legal under federal law — there is no way to recount or change the vote.
Potentially more problematic, Bolick’s House Bill 2720 says lawmakers could take that action “without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter.”
That by itself would appear to violate the Arizona Constitution, which spells out when the Legislature is, in fact, in session and when it can act.
More practically, Bolick’s proposal does not explain how there even could be a majority vote if there is no formal, on-the-record vote at a nonexistent legislative session.
REACTION IS SWIFT
Bolick did not respond to multiple requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
But Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wasted no time in reacting, calling the proposal “breathtaking.”
“So really, we should just get rid of the presidential election altogether?” Hobbs said in a Twitter message. “In reality, that’s what this bill would do.”
Julie Erfle, a Democratic political consultant, was a bit more succinct, saying that Bolick “gives AZ voters the middle finger.”
NOT THE FIRST EFFORT
Bolick is not the first Republican to advance the argument that lawmakers can trump voter decisions.
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, has repeatedly argued that the U.S. Constitution gives Arizona lawmakers “plenary authority” to determine who gets the state’s electoral votes.
But the Legislature was not in session and House Speaker Russell Bowers rebuffed his efforts to call a hearing of the House Federal Relations Committee, which Finchem chaired last year, to look at ways the 2020 election could have been tainted. Bowers said state law is clear that the electors are selected based on the certified voter count.
So Finchem and others decided to conduct their own unofficial hearing away from the state Capitol in late November to hear allegations from Donald Trump’s legal team that the election was rigged. That event had all the legal authority and effect of a political rally.
Bolick seeks to get around that with her proposed law specifically authorizing a legislative override.
MORE MONITORING WOULD BE REQUIRED
Aside from legislative veto of election results, Bolick’s HB 2720 seeks to put into statute other ways that election results can be monitored.
For example, it would require counties to create digitized images of all ballots, which would be available to the public to review.
She also wants the public to be able to monitor what happens when a ballot cannot be read by tallying equipment, perhaps because of stray marks or because the individual voted for more than one candidate for an office.
That normally involves election workers from both parties reviewing the ballot, attempting to determine the voter’s intent, and creating a new ballot that could be fed through the machine. Bolick wants the images of these duplicated ballots posted on a county website within 24 hours.
BARRING JUDGES FROM RULING WITHOUT JURIES
She also wants to expand an existing law that now allows for up to three observers representing candidates or political parties at the counting center. HB 2720 would require there also be at least 10 individuals from the general public who are registered voters in the county.
Then there’s the issue of how courts have to handle election challenges.
There were a series of lawsuits following now President Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump in Arizona. Those included one by Kelli Ward, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, who contended there were mistakes made in the process of duplicating ballots.
A trial judge agreed to have a review of a random sample of 1,626 of these duplicated ballots, which did turn up errors.
But the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewing that case, said the error rate was no more than 0.55%.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said extrapolating that out over the 27,869 ballots that had been duplicated would have gained Trump no more than 153 votes, which would not have affected the outcome of the Arizona election that Biden won by more than 10,000 votes.
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Biden’s win in the state.
Bolick’s bill would have required the case to go to a jury regardless of merits and precluded the trial judge — and, ultimately the Supreme Court — from concluding ahead of a jury trial that the case had no legal merit or practical chance to succeed.
The same would apply to challenges to future election returns if her bill becomes law.
*********************
Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results. Not clear if or how election law proposed by Arizona Rep. Shawnna Bolick would work in practice
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Jan 30, 2021 Updated Feb 13, 2021
Rep. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, did not respond to requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.
The proposal by Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court.
Included would be allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.
That would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint Bolick, serves.
But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.
LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
It’s not clear exactly how that would work.
Congress counts each state’s electoral votes and announces two weeks before Inauguration Day who was elected, which is Shawnna Bolick’s proposed deadline for state lawmakers to make a final decision whether to change the electoral tally.
Absent Congress reconvening to recount the tally — something that may not be legal under federal law — there is no way to recount or change the vote.
Potentially more problematic, Bolick’s House Bill 2720 says lawmakers could take that action “without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter.”
That by itself would appear to violate the Arizona Constitution, which spells out when the Legislature is, in fact, in session and when it can act.
More practically, Bolick’s proposal does not explain how there even could be a majority vote if there is no formal, on-the-record vote at a nonexistent legislative session.
REACTION IS SWIFT
Bolick did not respond to multiple requests to discuss her measure or answer questions.
But Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wasted no time in reacting, calling the proposal “breathtaking.”
“So really, we should just get rid of the presidential election altogether?” Hobbs said in a Twitter message. “In reality, that’s what this bill would do.”
Julie Erfle, a Democratic political consultant, was a bit more succinct, saying that Bolick “gives AZ voters the middle finger.”
NOT THE FIRST EFFORT
Bolick is not the first Republican to advance the argument that lawmakers can trump voter decisions.
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, has repeatedly argued that the U.S. Constitution gives Arizona lawmakers “plenary authority” to determine who gets the state’s electoral votes.
But the Legislature was not in session and House Speaker Russell Bowers rebuffed his efforts to call a hearing of the House Federal Relations Committee, which Finchem chaired last year, to look at ways the 2020 election could have been tainted. Bowers said state law is clear that the electors are selected based on the certified voter count.
So Finchem and others decided to conduct their own unofficial hearing away from the state Capitol in late November to hear allegations from Donald Trump’s legal team that the election was rigged. That event had all the legal authority and effect of a political rally.
Bolick seeks to get around that with her proposed law specifically authorizing a legislative override.
MORE MONITORING WOULD BE REQUIRED
Aside from legislative veto of election results, Bolick’s HB 2720 seeks to put into statute other ways that election results can be monitored.
For example, it would require counties to create digitized images of all ballots, which would be available to the public to review.
She also wants the public to be able to monitor what happens when a ballot cannot be read by tallying equipment, perhaps because of stray marks or because the individual voted for more than one candidate for an office.
That normally involves election workers from both parties reviewing the ballot, attempting to determine the voter’s intent, and creating a new ballot that could be fed through the machine. Bolick wants the images of these duplicated ballots posted on a county website within 24 hours.
BARRING JUDGES FROM RULING WITHOUT JURIES
She also wants to expand an existing law that now allows for up to three observers representing candidates or political parties at the counting center. HB 2720 would require there also be at least 10 individuals from the general public who are registered voters in the county.
Then there’s the issue of how courts have to handle election challenges.
There were a series of lawsuits following now President Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump in Arizona. Those included one by Kelli Ward, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, who contended there were mistakes made in the process of duplicating ballots.
A trial judge agreed to have a review of a random sample of 1,626 of these duplicated ballots, which did turn up errors.
But the Arizona Supreme Court, reviewing that case, said the error rate was no more than 0.55%.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said extrapolating that out over the 27,869 ballots that had been duplicated would have gained Trump no more than 153 votes, which would not have affected the outcome of the Arizona election that Biden won by more than 10,000 votes.
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Biden’s win in the state.
Bolick’s bill would have required the case to go to a jury regardless of merits and precluded the trial judge — and, ultimately the Supreme Court — from concluding ahead of a jury trial that the case had no legal merit or practical chance to succeed.
The same would apply to challenges to future election returns if her bill becomes law.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:30 am
'Good-Faith Basis' To Conclude Trump Engaged In Federal Crimes: January 6 Committee
by Ayman Mohyeldin
Mar 2, 2022
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, discusses findings by the January 6th committee, revealed in a court filing in a federal case about obtaining documents from Trumpworld lawyer John Eastman, in which it is revealed that the committee has concluded that Donald Trump obstructed an official proceeding and "engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S."
by Ayman Mohyeldin
Mar 2, 2022
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, discusses findings by the January 6th committee, revealed in a court filing in a federal case about obtaining documents from Trumpworld lawyer John Eastman, in which it is revealed that the committee has concluded that Donald Trump obstructed an official proceeding and "engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S."
[Barbara McQuade] Donald Trump absolutely knew that there was no fraud here. In fact, one judge said, "There was not a scintilla of evidence that there IS fraud." There's an instruction that juries get about willful blindness. You can't turn a blind eye to something when it's highly probable that it's true. If someone tells you that the world is round, you can't say the world is flat in the face of repeated evidence that it is round. If scientists tell you, and they show you photos, and you continue to persist that the world is flat, at some point, a jury will believe that you are lying.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:17 am
Kinzinger: Trump was the 'worst president America has ever had'
by CNN
Feb 7, 2022
Speaking out after being censured by the Republican National Committee, Rep. Kinzinger (R-IL) shares with New Day what he will tell his son about former president Donald Trump.
by CNN
Feb 7, 2022
Speaking out after being censured by the Republican National Committee, Rep. Kinzinger (R-IL) shares with New Day what he will tell his son about former president Donald Trump.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Feb 12, 2022 11:23 am
Peter Bernegger and the Wisconsin Election Review
by Ali Velshi
MSNBC
February 11, 2022
*******************
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. PETER BERNEGGER, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 09–60932
Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant, Peter Bernegger, appeals his conviction for mail and bank fraud. He also appeals his sentence of seventy months in prison and restitution of approximately $2 million. We AFFIRM as modified.
I.
Peter Bernegger and Stephen Finch were charged in a six-count indictment with various counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy for inducing investors to invest money in their two start-up companies, We–Gel and Citrus Products International (CPI). We–Gel purported to make gelatin out of catfish waste, and CPI sought to make limonin out of lemon seeds.
Attempting to obtain capital for their new businesses, Bernegger and Finch held several meetings for potential investors, explaining their knowledge of the processes used to make gelatin and limonin out of waste products. One witness testified that Bernegger and Finch claimed there was nothing they did not know about these processes and that the gelatin was perfected and ready to be sold. Two witnesses testified that Finch said he and Bernegger had a contract with Nutri–West that was worth $3.2 million. Following these meetings, several individuals invested in both We–Gel and CPI.
Bernegger and Finch were never able to manufacture a sellable product, however, often pouring the results of their attempts in a ditch behind the plant. In fact, they were only able to make viable batches of the product a couple of times. As a result, We–Gel had no customers, and never made any sales. Nonetheless, Bernegger sent e-mails and letters to investors telling them how well things were going. Among other things, he told the investors that “We–Gel is producing product, shipping and invoicing customers,” “we have contracted orders from 2 large customers totaling 3,000 metric tons per year,” and We–Gel had “completely sold out of gelatin at a good price.” He further told investors that the United States Navy had expressed interest in the process being used at We–Gel. David Cooper, an investor who also worked as a chemist with Finch and Bernegger, testified that he asked Bernegger why he did not tell the investors the truth in these letters, to which Bernegger replied, “They can't handle the truth.”
Later, Bernegger mailed a letter to We–Gel investors asking for additional funds “to finance [We–Gel's] accounts receivable” and asking each investor to contribute at least $25,000. In that letter, he noted that in order to “sweeten the pot,” “a letter of intent has been signed with a Texas fish processing company named GAF.” In a letter sent three days later, he said that GAF “is paying” We–Gel $1.2 million, which was purportedly “on top of the 50% of pre-tax profits from the second plant and is expected to be paid in about 4 months from now.” Bernegger testified that he believed that We–Gel did have a letter of intent with GAF, pointing to an agreement We–Gel had with L & S Consulting, a company that hoped to broker a deal between We–Gel and GAF. That letter stated that “L & S is negotiating a deal with GAF such that GAF and We–Gel will form a 50–50 partnership for fish waste processing.” The document was signed by Bernegger and Larry Mobley, a partner at L & S. Bernegger claimed that he believed Mobley was signing on behalf of GAF.
The jury heard testimony from GAF's general manager, GAF's executive vice president, and Mobley, each of whom testified that GAF never signed a letter of intent with We–Gel. The only document signed by GAF was a confidentiality agreement in anticipation of GAF's visit to We–Gel's plant. Although GAF employees did visit the We–Gel plant, they did not think the process was sufficiently developed to warrant doing business with We–Gel.
As a result of the letters Bernegger mailed, We–Gel obtained additional funding from some of its investors. One investor gave another $25,000 just days after receiving the second letter. Other investors did so shortly thereafter. At the end of February 2005, Donnie Kisner, who had invested $100,000 in CPI, called his relative, Leo Bieneck, to tell him what he had learned about We–Gel during the investor meetings. As a result of that conversation, Bieneck wrote a check to We–Gel for $25,000. At the time of trial, none of the investors had received any return on his investment.
In addition to funding from his investors, Bernegger obtained grants of $250,000 each from both Clay County, Mississippi and the Mississippi Land, Water and Timber Board. Bernegger signed both a grant agreement and a security agreement with the state. As collateral for the security agreement, the state received the first and only lien on any equipment purchased with the money for five years. We–Gel was expected to meet certain other requirements, such as employing at least fifty-five employees after two years, turning in timely reports, and not selling the company. If We–Gel did not meet any of those obligations, the state could foreclose on the equipment.
A few months after signing the security agreement with the state, Bernegger sought a loan from BancorpSouth, hoping to pledge the same equipment as collateral. He sent the loan officer a letter with a list of equipment, valuing it at $1 million and stating, “We–Gel owns this equipment and it is paid for in full.” The letter did not mention the state's security interest. We–Gel's office manager testified that, when Bernegger asked her to put together information about the equipment to give to the bank, she told him that the equipment was owned by the state. Asked what his response was, she said, “He kind of shrugged me off and told me not to worry about it. That, no, that was our equipment.” Later, Bernegger took the loan officer on a tour of We–Gel and reiterated that it owned all of the equipment free of any liens. As a result, Bancorp agreed to issue a loan to Bernegger secured by the equipment.
As a condition of closing the loan with Bancorp, Bernegger gave the bank a lien on his home in Wisconsin, which was already the subject of three liens. Before closing the loan with Bancorp, however, he borrowed $100,000 from another bank, pledging his home as collateral. Nonetheless, he signed an affidavit at the closing with Bancorp purporting to set forth all of the liens on the house, but omitting the new lien of $100,000. When Bancorp received the title opinion revealing the fourth lien, it refused to fund the remainder of the loan. Bancorp estimated its total loss from We–Gel at $125,000.
The indictment included six counts.1 The jury acquitted Finch of the two counts against him and acquitted Bernegger of two of the five counts against him, but convicted Bernegger of mail fraud and bank fraud. Bernegger was sentenced to seventy months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $2,100,000.
II.
Bernegger makes several arguments on appeal, challenging both his conviction and his sentence.
A.
Bernegger first contends that the district court erred in refusing to sever
the bank fraud count from the mail and wire fraud counts. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b), “objections based on defects in the indictment, as well as [r]equests for severance of charges or defendants ․ must be raised prior to trial.” United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 861 (5th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger never moved to sever Count 6, however. Instead, he points to a Motion to Sever filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), requesting that the district court “sever[ ] the case against him from that of the case of the Co–Defendant, Stephen Finch.” Bernegger renewed that motion several times during the trial, but at all times he referred only to severing his case from that of his co-defendant.
Bernegger nonetheless asserts that his motion below preserved the issue because Rule 8(b) controls all severance motions in cases in which multiple defendants are tried, regardless of whether the movant is seeking to sever offenses or defendants. Bernegger, however, never mentioned severing Count 6 in his motion to the trial court. A defendant waives his offense-severance argument when he argues below only that severance of defendants was required yet maintains on appeal that severance of offenses is necessary. See Mann, 161 F.3d at 861 n.58 (distinguishing motions to sever offenses from motions to sever defendants for preservation purposes). Nor is this result changed by United States v. Holloway, 1 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.1993), cited by Bernegger at oral argument. There, the defendant moved to sever the charge of being a felon in possession of a weapon from his robbery offenses, citing Rule 14 but not Rule 8(a). Id. at 309–10. We held that the defendant need not cite the particular rule when his argument is made clear to the district court. Id. at 310 n.2. Critically, here, Bernegger neither cited the proper rule nor made his argument that the charges should be severed to the district court. As a result, he did not preserve the issue, regardless of which rule controls.
Alternatively, Bernegger argues that this court should review the failure to sever for plain error. When an appellant does not show cause for failing to move for severance prior to trial, we need not address the merits of the severance argument at all, but we retain discretion to review for plain error. Mann, 161 F.3d at 862; United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1198–99 & n.6 (5th Cir.1995), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1105 (1996). Even if we review for plain error, Bernegger is not entitled to relief. “The indictment ․ may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged ․ are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a). The district court did not clearly err in finding that these offenses were of a similar character and constitute part of a common scheme—“the making of fraudulent misrepresentations for the purpose of funding his business venture.”
Nor did Bernegger establish that any alleged error affected his substantial rights. He briefly argues that he was prejudiced because “the mere existence of the bank fraud invariably led the jury to assume the worst about Mr. Bernegger,” which he says “explains Mr. Bernegger's convictions when Mr. Finch, who admitted lying to Mr. Bernegger and the investors, was acquitted of every count.” He fails to note, however, that the court instructed the jury:
A separate crime is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each count and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately. The case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the crimes charged should not control your verdict as to any other crime or any other defendant. You must give separate considerations to the evidence as to each defendant.
We have held that instructions almost identical to those given here are sufficient to cure any prejudice from the joinder of defendants or offenses. See Mann, 161 F.3d at 862. Indeed, the jury followed those instructions: Bernegger was acquitted on two counts, as was Finch. As this court has previously said, “the acquittal of all the defendants on one or more counts ‘supports the inference that the jury considered separately the evidence as to each defendant and each count.’ ” Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 759 (5th Cir.1994)). In sum, the district court did not commit plain error by not severing Count 6.
B.
Bernegger next argues that the district court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it denied him the opportunity to cross-examine Donnie Kisner, an investor in CPI, about an alleged discrepancy in his testimony. This claim is reviewed de novo, subject to a harmless error analysis. United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir.2006). If no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, we review the limitations on cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 558–59. We will not find an abuse of discretion “absent a showing that the limitations were clearly prejudicial.” United States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to cross-examine witnesses against him, that right is not unlimited. Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 558. “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination [regarding a witness's motivation to testify] based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). “What is required is that defense counsel be ‘permitted to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’ ” Diaz, 637 F.3d at 597 (quoting United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 156 (5th Cir.2006) (citation omitted)). To determine if a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred, we inquire into “whether the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness.” United States v. Tansley, 986 F.2d 880, 886 (5th Cir.1993).
During cross-examination, Kisner revealed that he was involved in an ongoing project involving processing waste with David Cooper, an investor who had also worked as a chemist with Finch and Bernegger. Kisner testified that he had signed a confidentiality agreement and could not discuss it further, but Bernegger argued that he should be able to cross-examine Kisner on the details of the project:
I think now that we know that this is a byproduct of food and Mr. Cooper is involved and Mr. Cooper was involved in CPI and We–Gel, I have good reason to believe that these gentlemen may have commandeered—that may be a strong word—or absconded—that's a strong word, too—with a project for which Mr. Bernegger may have had—may use and now may be processing that, the same set of facts that are before this Court and for which my client is being criminally prosecuted. I don't know that because I haven't heard what Mr. Kisner is going to say. But if that's the case, that is terribly relevant, Your Honor. In fact, that is not only relevant, it is material.
The district court excused the jury to take testimony under seal. During Bernegger's questioning outside the presence of the jury, Kisner testified that he was involved in a new project to process waste with Putnam Ethanol. He further testified that his wife had signed the confidentiality agreement, contrary to his earlier testimony that he had done so. He testified, however, that he was bound by it. The district court determined that the new project and any alleged trade secret violation were not relevant to the fraud issues presented to the jury. Accordingly, the district court did not allow Bernegger to cross-examine Kisner on that particular issue in front of the jury.
Bernegger first argues that he should have been able to cross-examine Kisner about the fact that his wife actually signed the confidentiality agreement, contrary to Kisner's prior testimony. However, the record does not reflect that Bernegger's attorney ever sought to elicit that testimony before the jury. The district court did not prevent him from cross-examining Kisner about the discrepancy in his testimony. Alternatively, Bernegger argues that the district court's limitation on his cross-examination of Kisner was improper because Bernegger might have shown that Kisner stole a trade secret from him and used it in his new project, meaning that Kisner had an interest in seeing Bernegger convicted. Bernegger has not shown, however, that such testimony would have been relevant to whether he fraudulently obtained funding for CPI and We–Gel, or would have been more than marginally relevant to Kisner's credibility. Nor has he presented anything more than mere speculation that Kisner did in fact use one of Bernegger's processes improperly. Therefore, the district court gave Bernegger sufficient latitude during his cross-examination of Kisner, and there was no Sixth Amendment violation.
Because no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, we next review whether the district court's restrictions on cross-examination were so prejudicial as to result in an abuse of discretion. Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 558–59. Prejudice is shown only if “a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness's credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” United States v. Davis, 393 F.3d 540, 548 (5th Cir.2004). For the reasons discussed above, Bernegger has not shown that the district court's limitations on cross-examination were prejudicial. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
C.
Next, Bernegger contends that the district court erred by not granting a mistrial based on the format of the superseding indictment. Because he never asked the district court for a mistrial based on the indictment, we review for plain error. See United States v. Potts, 644 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir.2011). Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the indictment, which were listed under the title “The Scheme” in Count 1, generally described the fraudulent scheme allegedly devised by Finch and Bernegger. Those eight paragraphs were then incorporated by reference in Counts 2 through 5. Following the general description of the scheme, the indictment contained another section, entitled “Execution of the Scheme,” that laid out the specifics of Count 1—namely, that Finch had made misrepresentations to Larry Mobley, causing him to wire approximately $200,000 to We–Gel. Accordingly, while both Bernegger and Finch were identified in the first part of Count 1 describing the scheme, only Finch was actually charged with executing the scheme.
In Bernegger's view, the form of the indictment was confusing to the jury and justified a sua sponte mistrial. As the district court explained while discussing Count 1 at the charge conference, the jury charge adequately made clear that Bernegger was not charged in Count 1. Bernegger's counsel agreed:
THE COURT: I think the instructions, as they are, are adequate. Mr. Daniels, you can't find him guilty if there's not a blank to fill in.
MR. DANIELS: Right.
Bernegger's attorney then requested an additional curative instruction to clarify the point further, which the district court granted, instructing the jury:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot emphasize enough to you that unless there is a blank here provided for that defendant, you cannot find that defendant guilty of that count, and the example that I'm giving you primarily deals with Count 1. Count 1 mentions—goes in great detail, you will have this superseding indictment back there, and Mr. Bernegger is mentioned, his name is mentioned in Count 1. But there is no provision for you to find Mr. Bernegger guilty of Count 1 of that indictment.
Bernegger received everything he requested from the district court to clarify the Count 1 issue.2 The district court did not plainly err by not declaring a mistrial sua sponte.
D.
In addition, Bernegger argues that insufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict on Count 3 of the indictment: that he caused Leo Bieneck to send $25,000 by mail. In addressing such an argument, this court views the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir.2007). “Credibility determinations and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the jury's verdict.” United States v. Thompson, 647 F.3d 180, 183 (5th Cir.2011). The issue is not whether the jury correctly determined guilt, but whether it made a rational decision supported by sufficient evidence in the record. United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.1995).
To prove mail fraud, “[t]he Government was required to prove only a scheme to defraud, the use of the mail or wire communications, and a specific intent to defraud.” United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434, 450 (5th Cir.2010); see 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Contrary to Bernegger's contentions, the government is not required to prove that any misrepresentations were made directly to the victim. McMillan, 600 F.3d at 450. Bernegger argues first, that no fraudulent scheme existed, second, that there was no proof that Bieneck's check was mailed, and third, that there was no evidence that he had specific intent to defraud Bieneck or that he caused Bieneck to send the check.
First, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a scheme to defraud. Bernegger argues generally that he intended to establish a legitimate business, that there was a large demand for gelatin, that Finch lied to him about being a doctor, and that the investors signed subscription agreements recognizing the economic risk of investing. As detailed above, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence that Bernegger made specific misrepresentations about contracts that We–Gel did not actually have, about a letter of intent signed by GAF,3 about how well production was going, and about the status of collateral he pledged for a business loan,4 all with the goal of obtaining money to fund We–Gel. The jury was free to credit this evidence and disbelieve Bernegger, and there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a scheme to defraud.
Second, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Bieneck's check was mailed. “When ․ it would be unusual for the transmittal in question to be made other than by mail, circumstantial evidence of the mailing is sufficient to support a mail fraud conviction.” United States v. Sprick, 233 F.3d 845, 854 (5th Cir.2000). Bieneck lived in Oklahoma; We–Gel received his check in Mississippi. The government points to the following testimony from Bernegger as an implicit admission that the check from Bieneck was mailed to We–Gel:
Q. While we are on the subject of checks, Mr. Bieneck mailed you a check in February of '05 as well; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No.
Q. You did receive a check from Leo Bieneck, correct?
A. We–Gel did, yes.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient evidence that Bernegger used the mail for a fraudulent scheme.
Third, there is sufficient evidence that Bernegger caused Bieneck to send the check and that he had a specific intent to defraud. The jury heard testimony from Kisner that he relayed the information he had heard from Bernegger to his relative, Bieneck. It cannot be disputed that Bernegger's intent in sending the letters and holding the investors' meeting was to procure more investors. Kisner himself invested more money after receiving the letters from Bernegger, and he told Bieneck about We–Gel shortly thereafter. Bieneck mailed his check less than a month after Bernegger mailed the second letter. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict that Bernegger's misrepresentations caused Bieneck to invest money in We–Gel.
E.
Bernegger also argues that the district court erred in denying his pro se habeas corpus petition. After the verdict, but before sentencing, Bernegger filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising, among other things, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. His trial counsel then moved to withdraw based on those claims. The district court denied both the habeas petition and the motion to withdraw, holding that the petition was not ripe, and we dismissed the appeal from the denial. A defendant cannot collaterally attack his conviction until it has been affirmed on direct appeal. Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir.1988). As a general rule, therefore, this court declines to review ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. United States v. Bishop, 629 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2010). The district court correctly determined that Bernegger's habeas corpus petition was not ripe for review.
F.
Finally, Bernegger challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly calculated the total loss caused by his fraudulent scheme as $2,196,296 and improperly ordered restitution in that amount. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). A district court's calculation of the amount of loss attributable to a defendant is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Peterson, 101 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir.1996). Bernegger asserts that the district court clearly erred by including in the total loss amount the loans he obtained from Clay County, Mississippi and the Mississippi Land, Water and Timber Board (the Timber Board), each for approximately $250,000. The pre-sentence report (PSR), which the district court adopted, included the amounts of these government loans in the total loss and listed Clay County and the Timber Board as victims.
Bernegger argues that, because he did not obtain the two loans criminally, the district court improperly included them in the total loss amount. It is well established that for “acts to constitute relevant conduct [for purposes of calculating the total loss attributable to the defendant], the conduct must be criminal.” United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 665 (5th Cir.1997)). “Before a court may attribute losses to a defendant's fraudulent conduct, there must be some factual basis for the conclusion that those losses were the result of fraud.” See also United States v. Randall, 157 F.3d 328, 331 (5th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
No evidence introduced either at trial or at sentencing demonstrated that Bernegger obtained these loans in a fraudulent or otherwise criminal manner. In fact, the government never even alleged that Bernegger acted criminally in obtaining the loans. While the PSR lists Clay County and the Timber Board as victims, it fails to allege any facts to support this conclusion. Although a PSR “may be considered as evidence by the court when making sentencing determinations,” bare assertions made therein are not evidence standing alone. United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2009). In the absence of evidence supporting its characterization of the loans, the PSR is inadequate to support the inclusion of the loan amounts in the loss calculation. See Anderson, 174 F.3d at 528–30; see also Peterson, 101 F.3d at 385. As such, the district court clearly erred in treating the amounts Bernegger borrowed from Clay County and the Timber Board as losses attributable to “relevant conduct” within the meaning of section 1B1.3(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Subtracting the amounts of the two government loans from the loss calculation does not affect Bernegger's offense level, however, and therefore does not affect his sentence. The district court calculated the loss attributable to Bernegger's fraud as $2,196,296.08. Only $471,296.08 of the total loss amount was attributable to the government loans. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, any loss amount between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000 yields the same 16–level increase. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Thus, subtracting the loan amounts from the loss calculation, the correct total loss amount is $1,725,000, and Bernegger's offense level remains the same.
Because the district court clearly erred in calculating the total loss amount, however, the restitution amount is incorrect and must be modified. See United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 395–96 (5th Cir.2000). We therefore modify the restitution amount to reflect the correct total loss amount of $1,725,000.
III.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as modified.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. The indictment charged that: (1) Finch caused Larry Mobley to send a wire transfer of approximately $200,000; (2) Bernegger caused Craig Trebatowski to send via mail $100,000; (3) Bernegger caused Leo Bienek to send via mail $25,000; (4) Bernegger sent via mail a letter to all investors of We–Gel, his company, seeking additional cash investments based on several misrepresentations; (5) Finch and Bernegger conspired to commit wire and mail fraud, as set forth in the counts above; and (6) Bernegger committed fraud upon BancorpSouth, whose deposits were insured by the FDIC, by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel.. FN1. The indictment charged that: (1) Finch caused Larry Mobley to send a wire transfer of approximately $200,000; (2) Bernegger caused Craig Trebatowski to send via mail $100,000; (3) Bernegger caused Leo Bienek to send via mail $25,000; (4) Bernegger sent via mail a letter to all investors of We–Gel, his company, seeking additional cash investments based on several misrepresentations; (5) Finch and Bernegger conspired to commit wire and mail fraud, as set forth in the counts above; and (6) Bernegger committed fraud upon BancorpSouth, whose deposits were insured by the FDIC, by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel.
FN2. Relatedly, Bernegger claims that the district court erred “by not redacting [his name] from Count 1 of the indictment.” This court reviews this claim for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1550 (5th Cir.1993). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that “[t]he Court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from indictment or information.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). To strike surplusage, the language in the indictment must be “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial.” Graves, 5 F.3d at 1550. In response to Bernegger's request that the district court remove his name from Count 1, the district court explained that doing so would deprive the jury of the context of the fraud. Bernegger has not established that the inclusion of his name in the indictment was “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial” and has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the language.. FN2. Relatedly, Bernegger claims that the district court erred “by not redacting [his name] from Count 1 of the indictment.” This court reviews this claim for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1550 (5th Cir.1993). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that “[t]he Court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from indictment or information.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). To strike surplusage, the language in the indictment must be “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial.” Graves, 5 F.3d at 1550. In response to Bernegger's request that the district court remove his name from Count 1, the district court explained that doing so would deprive the jury of the context of the fraud. Bernegger has not established that the inclusion of his name in the indictment was “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial” and has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the language.
FN3. Bernegger contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “letter of intent.” The district court denied that request because it was an improper instruction and the definition was more properly suited for attorney argument. This court reviews “a challenge to jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, affording the district court substantial latitude in describing the law to the jurors.” United States v. Ortiz–Mendez, 634 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger has not established that the district court abused its discretion by denying the request.. FN3. Bernegger contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “letter of intent.” The district court denied that request because it was an improper instruction and the definition was more properly suited for attorney argument. This court reviews “a challenge to jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, affording the district court substantial latitude in describing the law to the jurors.” United States v. Ortiz–Mendez, 634 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger has not established that the district court abused its discretion by denying the request.
FN4. Bernegger makes similar arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions under Counts 4 and 6, that the government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he sent letters by mail to all investors of We–Gel seeking additional cash investments and that he committed fraud upon BancorpSouth by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel. For the reasons detailed above, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on these counts.. FN4. Bernegger makes similar arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions under Counts 4 and 6, that the government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he sent letters by mail to all investors of We–Gel seeking additional cash investments and that he committed fraud upon BancorpSouth by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel. For the reasons detailed above, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on these counts.
PER CURIAM:
******************
A Wisconsin man is scanning ballots and suing a county clerk as he launches his own election review
by Patrick Marley
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
July 5, 2021
MADISON - Republican lawmakers aren't the only ones examining Wisconsin's presidential election.
A New London man has been making copies of ballots in some communities as he conducts his own review of an election Joe Biden narrowly won.
"Our intention is to have true and honest elections. You hear all kinds of rumors and we want to dispel some of those if they're not true," Peter Bernegger said when asked about his endeavor.
Bernegger declined to say what his plans are but said he would announce them in the coming weeks. Recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties and more than a half dozen lawsuits upheld Biden's victory.
Bernegger's push to inspect ballots comes as Republican lawmakers ramp up their own review of the election. They have hired former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and former law enforcement officers at taxpayer expense to conduct their review as they decide whether to pass more election-related legislation.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos of Rochester has acknowledged Biden won the election. That has won him enmity from former President Donald Trump, who has said Vos, Senate President Chris Kapenga of Delafield and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu of Oostburg haven't done enough to investigate the election.
More:Wisconsin Republicans, and a disgraced ex-Missouri governor, tour site of controversial Arizona ballot audit
Scanning and suing
Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said last year's election was run properly but he worries efforts like Bernegger's undermine faith in it.
"One of the difficult things about conspiracy theories is they basically can't be disproved and all they do is cause doubt and distrust."
Bernegger sued Door County Clerk Jill Lau in May for copies of election documents. A judge has yet to rule.
He has made copies of ballots in at least two Dane County communities, Verona and Westport. He indicated he was collecting ballots in other counties but declined to say which ones.
Robert Anderson, the deputy clerk in Westport, said Bernegger told him he had plans to visit Brown County and hoped to eventually review 2 million of the 3.3 million ballots cast in the state.
Asked about that figure Thursday, Bernegger said he had "no knowledge of the total number" of ballots he would end up examining.
Anderson said Bernegger asked to review the more than 3,000 ballots cast in Westport. Bernegger and three others spent about four hours there last month scanning copies on equipment they brought with them, Anderson said.
Anderson had three poll workers on hand to oversee the process. He charged Bernegger $135 to cover their pay, he said.
"They were just looking for stuff. He didn't give me specifics," Anderson said.
In Verona, Bernegger and a few others spent half a day scanning ballots from one ward, according to City Administrator Adam Sayre.
Dane County has posted images of every ballot cast in November on its website. Bernegger didn't say why he wanted to make his own copies instead of using those.
In his lawsuit in Door County, Bernegger wrote that he had asked to inspect and take photos of hard drives, memory sticks, election manuals, vote tabulations and other documents.
He wrote in the lawsuit that he had looked at some material during a "friendly meeting" at the clerk's office but that copies of many other records have not been provided.
Bernegger told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he is working with people of all political stripes but declined to disclose his own leanings. An online opinion piece posted under Bernegger's name in March questions the reliability of Wisconsin's elections, echoing themes that Trump routinely emphasizes.
"Here is the rigging I have found: numerous people showed up on election day last November 3rd in Wisconsin and were told 'you already voted' ... when they had not. More to come on this particular issue," the opinion piece states.
Prosecutors have not identified widespread fraud in Wisconsin, such as people voting in the names of others.
"We're looking into what happened and we'll release everything to the public — good or bad, whether it hurts us, harms us or not," Bernegger told the Journal Sentinel. "We're finding a lot of interesting things, I can tell you that. In the end I think it will help clerks run better elections."
********************
Michael Gableman reveals staffers in GOP-backed election investigation
Former Trump administrator, head of Wisconsin Voter Alliance on payroll for taxpayer-funded effort
by Corrinne Hess
Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2021, 1:25pm
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman has revealed most of the staff working on an investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 election. Gabelman has refused to answer questions regarding staff in the past.
During testimony Wednesday in front of state lawmakers, Gableman said his team members are paid between $40 an hour and $10,000 a month with taxpayer money.
Members include a former Trump administration official and the head of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, which unsuccessfully asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the results of Wisconsin's presidential election and force the Legislature to certify the state's presidential electors instead.
Wednesday was only the second time Gableman has testified since the GOP-backed election inquiry was announced this summer. During the 60-minute testimony, discussions between Democratic lawmakers and Gableman got intense and at times resulted in brief shouting matches. At one point, Gableman threatened to leave if he wasn’t shown respect.
The team includes:
• Gableman, who is paid $11,000 per month.
• Zakory Niemierowicz, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee graduate who heads human resources. Niemierowicz is paid $4,000 per month.
• Andrew Kloster, a former Trump administration official who has falsely claimed the election was stolen from the former president. Kloster is paid $5,000 per month.
• Carol Matheis, a California attorney active with the Federalist Society. Matheis is paid $5,000 per month.
• Gary Wait, a former private investigator. Wait is paid $3,250 a month.
• Ron Heuer, president of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance. Heuer is an investigator and paid $3,250 a month.
• Arkansas attorney Clint Lancaster, who represented a woman who sued Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, for paternity last year. Lancaster is paid $10,000 a month.
• Former Milwaukee Police Department detectives Thomas Obregon, Neil Saxton and Edward Chaim. Each is paid $40 per hour.
• There is one person Gableman said he will not identify to "protect his best interest with is full-time employer." That person is paid $40 per hour.
Gableman has been approved for an initial, taxpayer-funded budget of $680,000. He told lawmakers Wednesday he spent about $175,500 from this summer through November. These costs include staff, office space, office supplies and travel.
Gableman has been approved for an initial, taxpayer-funded budget of $680,000. He told lawmakers Wednesday he spent about $175,500 from this summer through November. These costs include staff, office space, office supplies and travel.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, called for the investigation and announced Gableman as its leader this summer.
Rep. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, asked Gableman how his election review could be legitimate if he has hired someone who has already sued to overturn the election.
"How can we take your investigation seriously?" Spreitzer said. "Shouldn’t we bring in someone above partisanship? Above reproach? Isn’t this just an extension of partisan activities?"
Gableman asked that Spreitzer's comments be "stricken from the record."
"My work and my employees will be judged by one thing: the finished work project," Gableman said. "Right now, what is preventing the finished work product is the fearful running and hiding of those government officials who do not want to be held accountable."
Gableman has issued subpoenas to state and local election officials to provide testimony and election records for the probe. After pushback over the large scope of the subpoenas, requests for documents were scaled back and in-person interviews were postponed.
Attorney General Josh Kaul, who represents the Wisconsin Elections Commission in his official capacity, has raised legal concerns with the investigation.
The Republican-backed election investigation comes after Wisconsin has completed a series of routine state election audits and a presidential recount in the state’s two largest counties. None of those reviews have uncovered widespread fraud or wrongdoing. There have also been numerous Republican-backed lawsuits in the state, all of which have failed to result in findings of wrongdoing by election officials or voters.
Biden won Wisconsin by about 21,000 votes — a margin similar to several other razor-thin statewide elections in recent years.
Wisconsin Public Radio, © Copyright 2022, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Educational Communications Board.
*****************
Wisconsin man who's scanning ballots, conducting election review was convicted of fraud
by Patrick Marley
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
July 12, 2021, 2:21 PM
BEHIND PAYWALL!
A small group of Wisconsinites conducting a review of the presidential election - including a felon convicted of fraud -- hopes soon to scan ballots in Brown County.
The group of about a half dozen volunteers has collected images of about 2 million ballots using the state's open records law, said Gary Walt, a former private investigator who is helping lead the effort. Those involved have visited two Dane County communities to scan ballots and examine them with microscopes.
Assisting Walt is Peter Bernegger of New London, who was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud and mail fraud. A federal judge in Mississippi sentenced him to 70 months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution of $2.1 million.
An appeals court upheld his conviction but lowered his restitution to $1.7 million. Bernegger has spent years fighting his conviction, filing numerous appeals.
Bernegger and Walt declined to name others involved in their ballot effort.
Bernegger early this month said he wasn't ready to talk about all his plans for reviewing the election. He did not answer questions asked later about his conviction.
Walt called Bernegger courageous for his willingness to pursue his election efforts knowing he would be questioned about his conviction.
Bernegger's fraud convictions stem from his involvement in getting people to invest in two startup companies, including one that purported to make gelatin from catfish waste. That company never made any sales, but Bernegger told investors business was going well, according to court documents.
When someone asked him why he didn't tell investors the truth, he responded, "They can't handle the truth," an appeals court noted when it upheld his conviction.
Bernegger and Walt's effort to review the presidential election comes as Republicans in the state Assembly conduct their own examination of it. Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in Wisconsin, as confirmed by recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties and a string of court rulings.
Top Wisconsin Republicans have acknowledged they cannot overturn the results of the election. Walt said he did not believe Republican lawmakers were going far enough with their review of the election but agreed there is no way to put Trump back in office before Biden's term is up.
"We're with Biden for the next three years whether we like it or not," he said. "What my intention is here is the voter integrity."
In mid-June, Bernegger sent an email to Republicans seeking to find volunteers to help with the review of ballots. He told them he was seeking to look at ballots in Brown, Door, Milwaukee, Sauk and Sawyer counties, according to a person who saw the email.
"Peter Bernegger is a convicted fraudster who swindled investors out of more than a million dollars," said a statement from Nellie Sires, executive director of the state Democratic Party. "This is yet another effort to create distrust in our election process and our democracy and won't prove anything we don't already know."
https://www.jsonline.com/restricted/?re ... 9936002%2F
*****************
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
In an open records lawsuit Bernegger filed in December, he claimed 0the executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission] was part of the so-called sect that he alleged "planned, conspired and implemented a massive election fraud" by using fake names and fake addresses to cast ballots. Bernegger alleged the group allowed an unnamed man from Illinois to ... [print] ballots for Biden in a back conference room ... his filing included a hand-drawn floor plan of an election office with a spot labeled "Hidden Room. Someone was sleeping? Snoring?"
*******************
And now that guy, the catfish waste into gelatin scam, make copies of all the ballots, there's a secret sect in a hidden room printing ballots for Biden guy, that guy, well, he was invited by Republicans to give a presentation to the State's assembly elections committee.
******************
PETER BERNEGGER, INVITED BY WISCONSIN GOP TO BRIEF ASSEMBLY ON ELECTION.
[Peter Bernegger] "Someone is using -- we don't know who -- someone is using our systems, our databases, to cast illegal ballots. We have found tens of thousands -- we don't know who's doing it, it's probably not the person who is the name, it's probably some bad guys. Something's wrong. Somebody's in there. Somebody's doing something wrong, casting illegal ballots. Somebody's in there. They're adding names. They're adding fake voters. They're casting illegal ballots by the tens of thousands. So I appreciate your time, and thank you for having me here.
[Crowd] [Claps]
*******************
With little evidence, felon tells Assembly committee there were thousands of illegal votes
by Henry Redman
Wisconsin Examiner
February 10, 2022 6:45 AM
Peter Bernegger’s presentation included a number of slides with unproven claims. (Screenshot | WisEye)
A so-called “database analyst” presented what he said was evidence of millions of illegal voter registrations and hundreds of thousands of illegal votes in the 2020 election to the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections on Wednesday.
Peter Bernegger, the grandson of the founders of sausage company Hillshire Farms who was convicted of bank fraud and mail fraud in 2009, said he’s been working with thousands of volunteers and a “supercomputer” to find evidence of fraud and misconduct in the state’s voter registration system. Despite repeated requests from Democrats on the committee, Bernegger refused to share further evidence or documentation of his allegations.
Bernegger said that his eight-step verification process, which he declined to elaborate on, has allowed his group to find evidence that people illegally voted twice, voted illegally from the wrong address or voted fraudulently in other ways. He also alleged that a “bad guy” could, without anyone noticing, access the state’s voter registration system and re-activate hundreds of thousands of voters who are listed as inactive because they’ve moved or died.
“We all know the official reported results, that Joe Biden won by 20,000 votes, but we have 46,000 people who voted and then were not verified by our system — that calls for a full investigation,” Bernegger said. “We’ve also found, using the supercomputer, there’s more than 1.5 million illegally registered voters in our state.”
Court decisions, recounts and investigations have repeatedly found that Biden won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes and that there is no widespread evidence of fraud.
Bernegger called for a full investigation into his allegations and the dismantling of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Bernegger has previously worked with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who is conducting a widely criticized partisan review of the 2020 election on behalf of Assembly Republicans.
Gableman’s investigation has apparently looked into many of the same issues as Bernegger’s band of volunteers, dragging on for months longer than initially planned and spurring complaints and lawsuits along the way. Earlier this week, a Dane County judge called out Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Burlington) for apparently deleting records related to Gableman’s work.
Election officials and Democrats said that Bernegger is drawing malicious conclusions out of easily explainable occurrences in the statewide voter registration database.
According to an explanation of the statewide system by the WEC’s technology director, odd entries are systematically examined and the built-in checks can resolve any problems — including duplicate registrations or clerical errors in information such as names or addresses.
“These are some odd entries but they all have a story. People forget (or don’t realize) just how many checks are built into the system,” the explainer, provided by WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind, states. “I’d caution that people should apply a critical eye to the spreadsheet snippets and homemade lists circulating. We see a lot of very old and/or inaccurate data being presented as representative of what is in the database.”
Bernegger said there were nefarious actors behind every corner of election administration and the maintenance of the state’s voter lists, allowing thousands of people to cast illegal ballots.
The statewide voter registration list includes more than 7 million entries, which includes years of voters who are still active and many who have been inactivated for various reasons. Despite election officials saying for months that this list isn’t how votes are tracked on Election Day and insisting it isn’t evidence of fraud that active and inactive voter files are stored in the same database, Bernegger repeatedly alleged this leaves the state open to fraud.
“You can see where we have a tremendous amount of inactive registered voters,” he said. “Now this gets to the crux of a problem. We know we have seen it with our own eyes. You could switch an inactive person to active with two clicks. We have seen it with our own eyes. It opens the door to fraud. Anybody in there, you’re talking electronic computer coding. Anybody gets access to the WisVote system, you can go in there, you could flip 100,000 people, vote them, set them back or take them off and nobody would ever know.”
Without evidence, Peter Bernegger told the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee he’d found hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. (Screenshot | WisEye)
Bernegger also raised a number of addresses where there are more voter files than people who live there, even though many of his examples are apartment buildings which could have high tenant turnover year to year.
He spent much of his testimony discussing the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an organization with dozens of member states that use the system to learn when voters move or die. Bernegger alleged that the organization is a plot to give its employees across the country access to sensitive voter information and that it is both improperly providing information and attempting to wrongly register people to vote.
Republicans in the Legislature passed a law requiring Wisconsin to be a member of ERIC and Republican allies previously filed a lawsuit that said the ERIC data is so accurate it must be used to deactivate people’s voter registrations, even if the data wrongly says they’ve moved.
Bernegger also stated that he and his group had filed 450 criminal referrals because of his findings, though he added it was too early to know if any charges would result.
Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls), the committee’s chair and one of the Legislature’s most outspoken election conspiracy theorists, said several times that Bernegger’s testimony was not to be taken as him specifically accusing anyone of fraud and should only be taken as general information. Bernegger’s presentation included several examples of individual voters who he claimed had voted illegally in some way.
“I just wanna make sure you have said that we are looking at this information and we understand that we are not necessarily declaring fraud for anybody,” Brandtjen said. “We are asking questions about the data, the management, the duplication, so I think that [Bernegger] has mentioned several times that we are not claiming on one person, but we do have these questions.”
Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) took issue with that, saying that Brandtjen and Bernegger were giving different signals with Brandtjen saying these allegations should not be looked at specifically but Bernegger offering a number of specific examples in his testimony.
“I just want to be clear, though, that the presentation does draw conclusions about fraud, claiming that some individuals voted twice, talks about tens of thousands of illegally cast ballots to date,” Subeck said. “So, on one hand, you’re saying that there’s no conclusions about fraud, but the speaker is presenting it as if there are conclusions that have been drawn. And while that may be his conclusions, we certainly haven’t seen any documentation to back that up, nor have we seen law enforcement prosecutions to map that out.”
Subeck and Rep. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) repeatedly asked Bernegger for proof to back up his claims outside of the screenshots of spreadsheets he displayed during his testimony. Bernegger refused, only saying he has “government documents” to verify what he’s saying.
Brandtjen was unbothered by Bernegger’s refusal to share his methods or his evidence, saying she understands why he wouldn’t want to give up the processes in the system he’s worked hard to develop.
“I know you’re being a little private about your process because, like I say, I know it’s taken you a lot of months to come up with it,” Brandtjen said. “I am not aware of the full system itself. But I’ve heard from some of your volunteers of the work that is being done.”
Bernegger said several times that he used the U.S. Postal Service’s change of address database to check if someone had actually moved, even though the Democrats repeatedly said there could be lots of reasons why someone would change their mailing address without changing their residential address for purposes of voting — such as going to college or maintaining a vacation home.
“There’s more innuendo here than there is actual evidence,” Spreitzer said.
by Ali Velshi
MSNBC
February 11, 2022
*******************
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. PETER BERNEGGER, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 09–60932
Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant, Peter Bernegger, appeals his conviction for mail and bank fraud. He also appeals his sentence of seventy months in prison and restitution of approximately $2 million. We AFFIRM as modified.
I.
Peter Bernegger and Stephen Finch were charged in a six-count indictment with various counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy for inducing investors to invest money in their two start-up companies, We–Gel and Citrus Products International (CPI). We–Gel purported to make gelatin out of catfish waste, and CPI sought to make limonin out of lemon seeds.
Attempting to obtain capital for their new businesses, Bernegger and Finch held several meetings for potential investors, explaining their knowledge of the processes used to make gelatin and limonin out of waste products. One witness testified that Bernegger and Finch claimed there was nothing they did not know about these processes and that the gelatin was perfected and ready to be sold. Two witnesses testified that Finch said he and Bernegger had a contract with Nutri–West that was worth $3.2 million. Following these meetings, several individuals invested in both We–Gel and CPI.
Bernegger and Finch were never able to manufacture a sellable product, however, often pouring the results of their attempts in a ditch behind the plant. In fact, they were only able to make viable batches of the product a couple of times. As a result, We–Gel had no customers, and never made any sales. Nonetheless, Bernegger sent e-mails and letters to investors telling them how well things were going. Among other things, he told the investors that “We–Gel is producing product, shipping and invoicing customers,” “we have contracted orders from 2 large customers totaling 3,000 metric tons per year,” and We–Gel had “completely sold out of gelatin at a good price.” He further told investors that the United States Navy had expressed interest in the process being used at We–Gel. David Cooper, an investor who also worked as a chemist with Finch and Bernegger, testified that he asked Bernegger why he did not tell the investors the truth in these letters, to which Bernegger replied, “They can't handle the truth.”
Later, Bernegger mailed a letter to We–Gel investors asking for additional funds “to finance [We–Gel's] accounts receivable” and asking each investor to contribute at least $25,000. In that letter, he noted that in order to “sweeten the pot,” “a letter of intent has been signed with a Texas fish processing company named GAF.” In a letter sent three days later, he said that GAF “is paying” We–Gel $1.2 million, which was purportedly “on top of the 50% of pre-tax profits from the second plant and is expected to be paid in about 4 months from now.” Bernegger testified that he believed that We–Gel did have a letter of intent with GAF, pointing to an agreement We–Gel had with L & S Consulting, a company that hoped to broker a deal between We–Gel and GAF. That letter stated that “L & S is negotiating a deal with GAF such that GAF and We–Gel will form a 50–50 partnership for fish waste processing.” The document was signed by Bernegger and Larry Mobley, a partner at L & S. Bernegger claimed that he believed Mobley was signing on behalf of GAF.
The jury heard testimony from GAF's general manager, GAF's executive vice president, and Mobley, each of whom testified that GAF never signed a letter of intent with We–Gel. The only document signed by GAF was a confidentiality agreement in anticipation of GAF's visit to We–Gel's plant. Although GAF employees did visit the We–Gel plant, they did not think the process was sufficiently developed to warrant doing business with We–Gel.
As a result of the letters Bernegger mailed, We–Gel obtained additional funding from some of its investors. One investor gave another $25,000 just days after receiving the second letter. Other investors did so shortly thereafter. At the end of February 2005, Donnie Kisner, who had invested $100,000 in CPI, called his relative, Leo Bieneck, to tell him what he had learned about We–Gel during the investor meetings. As a result of that conversation, Bieneck wrote a check to We–Gel for $25,000. At the time of trial, none of the investors had received any return on his investment.
In addition to funding from his investors, Bernegger obtained grants of $250,000 each from both Clay County, Mississippi and the Mississippi Land, Water and Timber Board. Bernegger signed both a grant agreement and a security agreement with the state. As collateral for the security agreement, the state received the first and only lien on any equipment purchased with the money for five years. We–Gel was expected to meet certain other requirements, such as employing at least fifty-five employees after two years, turning in timely reports, and not selling the company. If We–Gel did not meet any of those obligations, the state could foreclose on the equipment.
A few months after signing the security agreement with the state, Bernegger sought a loan from BancorpSouth, hoping to pledge the same equipment as collateral. He sent the loan officer a letter with a list of equipment, valuing it at $1 million and stating, “We–Gel owns this equipment and it is paid for in full.” The letter did not mention the state's security interest. We–Gel's office manager testified that, when Bernegger asked her to put together information about the equipment to give to the bank, she told him that the equipment was owned by the state. Asked what his response was, she said, “He kind of shrugged me off and told me not to worry about it. That, no, that was our equipment.” Later, Bernegger took the loan officer on a tour of We–Gel and reiterated that it owned all of the equipment free of any liens. As a result, Bancorp agreed to issue a loan to Bernegger secured by the equipment.
As a condition of closing the loan with Bancorp, Bernegger gave the bank a lien on his home in Wisconsin, which was already the subject of three liens. Before closing the loan with Bancorp, however, he borrowed $100,000 from another bank, pledging his home as collateral. Nonetheless, he signed an affidavit at the closing with Bancorp purporting to set forth all of the liens on the house, but omitting the new lien of $100,000. When Bancorp received the title opinion revealing the fourth lien, it refused to fund the remainder of the loan. Bancorp estimated its total loss from We–Gel at $125,000.
The indictment included six counts.1 The jury acquitted Finch of the two counts against him and acquitted Bernegger of two of the five counts against him, but convicted Bernegger of mail fraud and bank fraud. Bernegger was sentenced to seventy months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $2,100,000.
II.
Bernegger makes several arguments on appeal, challenging both his conviction and his sentence.
A.
Bernegger first contends that the district court erred in refusing to sever
the bank fraud count from the mail and wire fraud counts. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b), “objections based on defects in the indictment, as well as [r]equests for severance of charges or defendants ․ must be raised prior to trial.” United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 861 (5th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger never moved to sever Count 6, however. Instead, he points to a Motion to Sever filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), requesting that the district court “sever[ ] the case against him from that of the case of the Co–Defendant, Stephen Finch.” Bernegger renewed that motion several times during the trial, but at all times he referred only to severing his case from that of his co-defendant.
Bernegger nonetheless asserts that his motion below preserved the issue because Rule 8(b) controls all severance motions in cases in which multiple defendants are tried, regardless of whether the movant is seeking to sever offenses or defendants. Bernegger, however, never mentioned severing Count 6 in his motion to the trial court. A defendant waives his offense-severance argument when he argues below only that severance of defendants was required yet maintains on appeal that severance of offenses is necessary. See Mann, 161 F.3d at 861 n.58 (distinguishing motions to sever offenses from motions to sever defendants for preservation purposes). Nor is this result changed by United States v. Holloway, 1 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.1993), cited by Bernegger at oral argument. There, the defendant moved to sever the charge of being a felon in possession of a weapon from his robbery offenses, citing Rule 14 but not Rule 8(a). Id. at 309–10. We held that the defendant need not cite the particular rule when his argument is made clear to the district court. Id. at 310 n.2. Critically, here, Bernegger neither cited the proper rule nor made his argument that the charges should be severed to the district court. As a result, he did not preserve the issue, regardless of which rule controls.
Alternatively, Bernegger argues that this court should review the failure to sever for plain error. When an appellant does not show cause for failing to move for severance prior to trial, we need not address the merits of the severance argument at all, but we retain discretion to review for plain error. Mann, 161 F.3d at 862; United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1198–99 & n.6 (5th Cir.1995), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1105 (1996). Even if we review for plain error, Bernegger is not entitled to relief. “The indictment ․ may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged ․ are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a). The district court did not clearly err in finding that these offenses were of a similar character and constitute part of a common scheme—“the making of fraudulent misrepresentations for the purpose of funding his business venture.”
Nor did Bernegger establish that any alleged error affected his substantial rights. He briefly argues that he was prejudiced because “the mere existence of the bank fraud invariably led the jury to assume the worst about Mr. Bernegger,” which he says “explains Mr. Bernegger's convictions when Mr. Finch, who admitted lying to Mr. Bernegger and the investors, was acquitted of every count.” He fails to note, however, that the court instructed the jury:
A separate crime is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each count and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately. The case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the crimes charged should not control your verdict as to any other crime or any other defendant. You must give separate considerations to the evidence as to each defendant.
We have held that instructions almost identical to those given here are sufficient to cure any prejudice from the joinder of defendants or offenses. See Mann, 161 F.3d at 862. Indeed, the jury followed those instructions: Bernegger was acquitted on two counts, as was Finch. As this court has previously said, “the acquittal of all the defendants on one or more counts ‘supports the inference that the jury considered separately the evidence as to each defendant and each count.’ ” Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 759 (5th Cir.1994)). In sum, the district court did not commit plain error by not severing Count 6.
B.
Bernegger next argues that the district court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it denied him the opportunity to cross-examine Donnie Kisner, an investor in CPI, about an alleged discrepancy in his testimony. This claim is reviewed de novo, subject to a harmless error analysis. United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir.2006). If no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, we review the limitations on cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 558–59. We will not find an abuse of discretion “absent a showing that the limitations were clearly prejudicial.” United States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to cross-examine witnesses against him, that right is not unlimited. Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 558. “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination [regarding a witness's motivation to testify] based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). “What is required is that defense counsel be ‘permitted to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’ ” Diaz, 637 F.3d at 597 (quoting United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 156 (5th Cir.2006) (citation omitted)). To determine if a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred, we inquire into “whether the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness.” United States v. Tansley, 986 F.2d 880, 886 (5th Cir.1993).
During cross-examination, Kisner revealed that he was involved in an ongoing project involving processing waste with David Cooper, an investor who had also worked as a chemist with Finch and Bernegger. Kisner testified that he had signed a confidentiality agreement and could not discuss it further, but Bernegger argued that he should be able to cross-examine Kisner on the details of the project:
I think now that we know that this is a byproduct of food and Mr. Cooper is involved and Mr. Cooper was involved in CPI and We–Gel, I have good reason to believe that these gentlemen may have commandeered—that may be a strong word—or absconded—that's a strong word, too—with a project for which Mr. Bernegger may have had—may use and now may be processing that, the same set of facts that are before this Court and for which my client is being criminally prosecuted. I don't know that because I haven't heard what Mr. Kisner is going to say. But if that's the case, that is terribly relevant, Your Honor. In fact, that is not only relevant, it is material.
The district court excused the jury to take testimony under seal. During Bernegger's questioning outside the presence of the jury, Kisner testified that he was involved in a new project to process waste with Putnam Ethanol. He further testified that his wife had signed the confidentiality agreement, contrary to his earlier testimony that he had done so. He testified, however, that he was bound by it. The district court determined that the new project and any alleged trade secret violation were not relevant to the fraud issues presented to the jury. Accordingly, the district court did not allow Bernegger to cross-examine Kisner on that particular issue in front of the jury.
Bernegger first argues that he should have been able to cross-examine Kisner about the fact that his wife actually signed the confidentiality agreement, contrary to Kisner's prior testimony. However, the record does not reflect that Bernegger's attorney ever sought to elicit that testimony before the jury. The district court did not prevent him from cross-examining Kisner about the discrepancy in his testimony. Alternatively, Bernegger argues that the district court's limitation on his cross-examination of Kisner was improper because Bernegger might have shown that Kisner stole a trade secret from him and used it in his new project, meaning that Kisner had an interest in seeing Bernegger convicted. Bernegger has not shown, however, that such testimony would have been relevant to whether he fraudulently obtained funding for CPI and We–Gel, or would have been more than marginally relevant to Kisner's credibility. Nor has he presented anything more than mere speculation that Kisner did in fact use one of Bernegger's processes improperly. Therefore, the district court gave Bernegger sufficient latitude during his cross-examination of Kisner, and there was no Sixth Amendment violation.
Because no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, we next review whether the district court's restrictions on cross-examination were so prejudicial as to result in an abuse of discretion. Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 558–59. Prejudice is shown only if “a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness's credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” United States v. Davis, 393 F.3d 540, 548 (5th Cir.2004). For the reasons discussed above, Bernegger has not shown that the district court's limitations on cross-examination were prejudicial. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
C.
Next, Bernegger contends that the district court erred by not granting a mistrial based on the format of the superseding indictment. Because he never asked the district court for a mistrial based on the indictment, we review for plain error. See United States v. Potts, 644 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir.2011). Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the indictment, which were listed under the title “The Scheme” in Count 1, generally described the fraudulent scheme allegedly devised by Finch and Bernegger. Those eight paragraphs were then incorporated by reference in Counts 2 through 5. Following the general description of the scheme, the indictment contained another section, entitled “Execution of the Scheme,” that laid out the specifics of Count 1—namely, that Finch had made misrepresentations to Larry Mobley, causing him to wire approximately $200,000 to We–Gel. Accordingly, while both Bernegger and Finch were identified in the first part of Count 1 describing the scheme, only Finch was actually charged with executing the scheme.
In Bernegger's view, the form of the indictment was confusing to the jury and justified a sua sponte mistrial. As the district court explained while discussing Count 1 at the charge conference, the jury charge adequately made clear that Bernegger was not charged in Count 1. Bernegger's counsel agreed:
THE COURT: I think the instructions, as they are, are adequate. Mr. Daniels, you can't find him guilty if there's not a blank to fill in.
MR. DANIELS: Right.
Bernegger's attorney then requested an additional curative instruction to clarify the point further, which the district court granted, instructing the jury:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot emphasize enough to you that unless there is a blank here provided for that defendant, you cannot find that defendant guilty of that count, and the example that I'm giving you primarily deals with Count 1. Count 1 mentions—goes in great detail, you will have this superseding indictment back there, and Mr. Bernegger is mentioned, his name is mentioned in Count 1. But there is no provision for you to find Mr. Bernegger guilty of Count 1 of that indictment.
Bernegger received everything he requested from the district court to clarify the Count 1 issue.2 The district court did not plainly err by not declaring a mistrial sua sponte.
D.
In addition, Bernegger argues that insufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict on Count 3 of the indictment: that he caused Leo Bieneck to send $25,000 by mail. In addressing such an argument, this court views the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir.2007). “Credibility determinations and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the jury's verdict.” United States v. Thompson, 647 F.3d 180, 183 (5th Cir.2011). The issue is not whether the jury correctly determined guilt, but whether it made a rational decision supported by sufficient evidence in the record. United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.1995).
To prove mail fraud, “[t]he Government was required to prove only a scheme to defraud, the use of the mail or wire communications, and a specific intent to defraud.” United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434, 450 (5th Cir.2010); see 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Contrary to Bernegger's contentions, the government is not required to prove that any misrepresentations were made directly to the victim. McMillan, 600 F.3d at 450. Bernegger argues first, that no fraudulent scheme existed, second, that there was no proof that Bieneck's check was mailed, and third, that there was no evidence that he had specific intent to defraud Bieneck or that he caused Bieneck to send the check.
First, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a scheme to defraud. Bernegger argues generally that he intended to establish a legitimate business, that there was a large demand for gelatin, that Finch lied to him about being a doctor, and that the investors signed subscription agreements recognizing the economic risk of investing. As detailed above, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence that Bernegger made specific misrepresentations about contracts that We–Gel did not actually have, about a letter of intent signed by GAF,3 about how well production was going, and about the status of collateral he pledged for a business loan,4 all with the goal of obtaining money to fund We–Gel. The jury was free to credit this evidence and disbelieve Bernegger, and there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a scheme to defraud.
Second, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Bieneck's check was mailed. “When ․ it would be unusual for the transmittal in question to be made other than by mail, circumstantial evidence of the mailing is sufficient to support a mail fraud conviction.” United States v. Sprick, 233 F.3d 845, 854 (5th Cir.2000). Bieneck lived in Oklahoma; We–Gel received his check in Mississippi. The government points to the following testimony from Bernegger as an implicit admission that the check from Bieneck was mailed to We–Gel:
Q. While we are on the subject of checks, Mr. Bieneck mailed you a check in February of '05 as well; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No.
Q. You did receive a check from Leo Bieneck, correct?
A. We–Gel did, yes.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient evidence that Bernegger used the mail for a fraudulent scheme.
Third, there is sufficient evidence that Bernegger caused Bieneck to send the check and that he had a specific intent to defraud. The jury heard testimony from Kisner that he relayed the information he had heard from Bernegger to his relative, Bieneck. It cannot be disputed that Bernegger's intent in sending the letters and holding the investors' meeting was to procure more investors. Kisner himself invested more money after receiving the letters from Bernegger, and he told Bieneck about We–Gel shortly thereafter. Bieneck mailed his check less than a month after Bernegger mailed the second letter. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict that Bernegger's misrepresentations caused Bieneck to invest money in We–Gel.
E.
Bernegger also argues that the district court erred in denying his pro se habeas corpus petition. After the verdict, but before sentencing, Bernegger filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising, among other things, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. His trial counsel then moved to withdraw based on those claims. The district court denied both the habeas petition and the motion to withdraw, holding that the petition was not ripe, and we dismissed the appeal from the denial. A defendant cannot collaterally attack his conviction until it has been affirmed on direct appeal. Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir.1988). As a general rule, therefore, this court declines to review ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. United States v. Bishop, 629 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2010). The district court correctly determined that Bernegger's habeas corpus petition was not ripe for review.
F.
Finally, Bernegger challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly calculated the total loss caused by his fraudulent scheme as $2,196,296 and improperly ordered restitution in that amount. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). A district court's calculation of the amount of loss attributable to a defendant is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Peterson, 101 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir.1996). Bernegger asserts that the district court clearly erred by including in the total loss amount the loans he obtained from Clay County, Mississippi and the Mississippi Land, Water and Timber Board (the Timber Board), each for approximately $250,000. The pre-sentence report (PSR), which the district court adopted, included the amounts of these government loans in the total loss and listed Clay County and the Timber Board as victims.
Bernegger argues that, because he did not obtain the two loans criminally, the district court improperly included them in the total loss amount. It is well established that for “acts to constitute relevant conduct [for purposes of calculating the total loss attributable to the defendant], the conduct must be criminal.” United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 665 (5th Cir.1997)). “Before a court may attribute losses to a defendant's fraudulent conduct, there must be some factual basis for the conclusion that those losses were the result of fraud.” See also United States v. Randall, 157 F.3d 328, 331 (5th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
No evidence introduced either at trial or at sentencing demonstrated that Bernegger obtained these loans in a fraudulent or otherwise criminal manner. In fact, the government never even alleged that Bernegger acted criminally in obtaining the loans. While the PSR lists Clay County and the Timber Board as victims, it fails to allege any facts to support this conclusion. Although a PSR “may be considered as evidence by the court when making sentencing determinations,” bare assertions made therein are not evidence standing alone. United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2009). In the absence of evidence supporting its characterization of the loans, the PSR is inadequate to support the inclusion of the loan amounts in the loss calculation. See Anderson, 174 F.3d at 528–30; see also Peterson, 101 F.3d at 385. As such, the district court clearly erred in treating the amounts Bernegger borrowed from Clay County and the Timber Board as losses attributable to “relevant conduct” within the meaning of section 1B1.3(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Subtracting the amounts of the two government loans from the loss calculation does not affect Bernegger's offense level, however, and therefore does not affect his sentence. The district court calculated the loss attributable to Bernegger's fraud as $2,196,296.08. Only $471,296.08 of the total loss amount was attributable to the government loans. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, any loss amount between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000 yields the same 16–level increase. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Thus, subtracting the loan amounts from the loss calculation, the correct total loss amount is $1,725,000, and Bernegger's offense level remains the same.
Because the district court clearly erred in calculating the total loss amount, however, the restitution amount is incorrect and must be modified. See United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 395–96 (5th Cir.2000). We therefore modify the restitution amount to reflect the correct total loss amount of $1,725,000.
III.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as modified.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. The indictment charged that: (1) Finch caused Larry Mobley to send a wire transfer of approximately $200,000; (2) Bernegger caused Craig Trebatowski to send via mail $100,000; (3) Bernegger caused Leo Bienek to send via mail $25,000; (4) Bernegger sent via mail a letter to all investors of We–Gel, his company, seeking additional cash investments based on several misrepresentations; (5) Finch and Bernegger conspired to commit wire and mail fraud, as set forth in the counts above; and (6) Bernegger committed fraud upon BancorpSouth, whose deposits were insured by the FDIC, by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel.. FN1. The indictment charged that: (1) Finch caused Larry Mobley to send a wire transfer of approximately $200,000; (2) Bernegger caused Craig Trebatowski to send via mail $100,000; (3) Bernegger caused Leo Bienek to send via mail $25,000; (4) Bernegger sent via mail a letter to all investors of We–Gel, his company, seeking additional cash investments based on several misrepresentations; (5) Finch and Bernegger conspired to commit wire and mail fraud, as set forth in the counts above; and (6) Bernegger committed fraud upon BancorpSouth, whose deposits were insured by the FDIC, by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel.
FN2. Relatedly, Bernegger claims that the district court erred “by not redacting [his name] from Count 1 of the indictment.” This court reviews this claim for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1550 (5th Cir.1993). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that “[t]he Court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from indictment or information.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). To strike surplusage, the language in the indictment must be “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial.” Graves, 5 F.3d at 1550. In response to Bernegger's request that the district court remove his name from Count 1, the district court explained that doing so would deprive the jury of the context of the fraud. Bernegger has not established that the inclusion of his name in the indictment was “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial” and has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the language.. FN2. Relatedly, Bernegger claims that the district court erred “by not redacting [his name] from Count 1 of the indictment.” This court reviews this claim for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1550 (5th Cir.1993). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that “[t]he Court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from indictment or information.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). To strike surplusage, the language in the indictment must be “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial.” Graves, 5 F.3d at 1550. In response to Bernegger's request that the district court remove his name from Count 1, the district court explained that doing so would deprive the jury of the context of the fraud. Bernegger has not established that the inclusion of his name in the indictment was “irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial” and has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the language.
FN3. Bernegger contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “letter of intent.” The district court denied that request because it was an improper instruction and the definition was more properly suited for attorney argument. This court reviews “a challenge to jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, affording the district court substantial latitude in describing the law to the jurors.” United States v. Ortiz–Mendez, 634 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger has not established that the district court abused its discretion by denying the request.. FN3. Bernegger contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “letter of intent.” The district court denied that request because it was an improper instruction and the definition was more properly suited for attorney argument. This court reviews “a challenge to jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, affording the district court substantial latitude in describing the law to the jurors.” United States v. Ortiz–Mendez, 634 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bernegger has not established that the district court abused its discretion by denying the request.
FN4. Bernegger makes similar arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions under Counts 4 and 6, that the government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he sent letters by mail to all investors of We–Gel seeking additional cash investments and that he committed fraud upon BancorpSouth by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel. For the reasons detailed above, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on these counts.. FN4. Bernegger makes similar arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions under Counts 4 and 6, that the government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he sent letters by mail to all investors of We–Gel seeking additional cash investments and that he committed fraud upon BancorpSouth by misrepresenting that certain equipment and property pledged as collateral was owned lien-free by We–Gel. For the reasons detailed above, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on these counts.
PER CURIAM:
******************
A Wisconsin man is scanning ballots and suing a county clerk as he launches his own election review
by Patrick Marley
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
July 5, 2021
MADISON - Republican lawmakers aren't the only ones examining Wisconsin's presidential election.
A New London man has been making copies of ballots in some communities as he conducts his own review of an election Joe Biden narrowly won.
"Our intention is to have true and honest elections. You hear all kinds of rumors and we want to dispel some of those if they're not true," Peter Bernegger said when asked about his endeavor.
Bernegger declined to say what his plans are but said he would announce them in the coming weeks. Recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties and more than a half dozen lawsuits upheld Biden's victory.
Bernegger's push to inspect ballots comes as Republican lawmakers ramp up their own review of the election. They have hired former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and former law enforcement officers at taxpayer expense to conduct their review as they decide whether to pass more election-related legislation.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos of Rochester has acknowledged Biden won the election. That has won him enmity from former President Donald Trump, who has said Vos, Senate President Chris Kapenga of Delafield and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu of Oostburg haven't done enough to investigate the election.
More:Wisconsin Republicans, and a disgraced ex-Missouri governor, tour site of controversial Arizona ballot audit
Scanning and suing
Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said last year's election was run properly but he worries efforts like Bernegger's undermine faith in it.
"One of the difficult things about conspiracy theories is they basically can't be disproved and all they do is cause doubt and distrust."
Bernegger sued Door County Clerk Jill Lau in May for copies of election documents. A judge has yet to rule.
He has made copies of ballots in at least two Dane County communities, Verona and Westport. He indicated he was collecting ballots in other counties but declined to say which ones.
Robert Anderson, the deputy clerk in Westport, said Bernegger told him he had plans to visit Brown County and hoped to eventually review 2 million of the 3.3 million ballots cast in the state.
Asked about that figure Thursday, Bernegger said he had "no knowledge of the total number" of ballots he would end up examining.
Anderson said Bernegger asked to review the more than 3,000 ballots cast in Westport. Bernegger and three others spent about four hours there last month scanning copies on equipment they brought with them, Anderson said.
Anderson had three poll workers on hand to oversee the process. He charged Bernegger $135 to cover their pay, he said.
"They were just looking for stuff. He didn't give me specifics," Anderson said.
In Verona, Bernegger and a few others spent half a day scanning ballots from one ward, according to City Administrator Adam Sayre.
Dane County has posted images of every ballot cast in November on its website. Bernegger didn't say why he wanted to make his own copies instead of using those.
In his lawsuit in Door County, Bernegger wrote that he had asked to inspect and take photos of hard drives, memory sticks, election manuals, vote tabulations and other documents.
He wrote in the lawsuit that he had looked at some material during a "friendly meeting" at the clerk's office but that copies of many other records have not been provided.
Bernegger told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he is working with people of all political stripes but declined to disclose his own leanings. An online opinion piece posted under Bernegger's name in March questions the reliability of Wisconsin's elections, echoing themes that Trump routinely emphasizes.
"Here is the rigging I have found: numerous people showed up on election day last November 3rd in Wisconsin and were told 'you already voted' ... when they had not. More to come on this particular issue," the opinion piece states.
Prosecutors have not identified widespread fraud in Wisconsin, such as people voting in the names of others.
"We're looking into what happened and we'll release everything to the public — good or bad, whether it hurts us, harms us or not," Bernegger told the Journal Sentinel. "We're finding a lot of interesting things, I can tell you that. In the end I think it will help clerks run better elections."
********************
Michael Gableman reveals staffers in GOP-backed election investigation
Former Trump administrator, head of Wisconsin Voter Alliance on payroll for taxpayer-funded effort
by Corrinne Hess
Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2021, 1:25pm
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman has revealed most of the staff working on an investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 election. Gabelman has refused to answer questions regarding staff in the past.
During testimony Wednesday in front of state lawmakers, Gableman said his team members are paid between $40 an hour and $10,000 a month with taxpayer money.
Members include a former Trump administration official and the head of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, which unsuccessfully asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the results of Wisconsin's presidential election and force the Legislature to certify the state's presidential electors instead.
Wednesday was only the second time Gableman has testified since the GOP-backed election inquiry was announced this summer. During the 60-minute testimony, discussions between Democratic lawmakers and Gableman got intense and at times resulted in brief shouting matches. At one point, Gableman threatened to leave if he wasn’t shown respect.
The team includes:
• Gableman, who is paid $11,000 per month.
• Zakory Niemierowicz, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee graduate who heads human resources. Niemierowicz is paid $4,000 per month.
• Andrew Kloster, a former Trump administration official who has falsely claimed the election was stolen from the former president. Kloster is paid $5,000 per month.
• Carol Matheis, a California attorney active with the Federalist Society. Matheis is paid $5,000 per month.
• Gary Wait, a former private investigator. Wait is paid $3,250 a month.
• Ron Heuer, president of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance. Heuer is an investigator and paid $3,250 a month.
• Arkansas attorney Clint Lancaster, who represented a woman who sued Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, for paternity last year. Lancaster is paid $10,000 a month.
• Former Milwaukee Police Department detectives Thomas Obregon, Neil Saxton and Edward Chaim. Each is paid $40 per hour.
• There is one person Gableman said he will not identify to "protect his best interest with is full-time employer." That person is paid $40 per hour.
Gableman has been approved for an initial, taxpayer-funded budget of $680,000. He told lawmakers Wednesday he spent about $175,500 from this summer through November. These costs include staff, office space, office supplies and travel.
Gableman has been approved for an initial, taxpayer-funded budget of $680,000. He told lawmakers Wednesday he spent about $175,500 from this summer through November. These costs include staff, office space, office supplies and travel.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, called for the investigation and announced Gableman as its leader this summer.
Rep. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, asked Gableman how his election review could be legitimate if he has hired someone who has already sued to overturn the election.
"How can we take your investigation seriously?" Spreitzer said. "Shouldn’t we bring in someone above partisanship? Above reproach? Isn’t this just an extension of partisan activities?"
Gableman asked that Spreitzer's comments be "stricken from the record."
"My work and my employees will be judged by one thing: the finished work project," Gableman said. "Right now, what is preventing the finished work product is the fearful running and hiding of those government officials who do not want to be held accountable."
Gableman has issued subpoenas to state and local election officials to provide testimony and election records for the probe. After pushback over the large scope of the subpoenas, requests for documents were scaled back and in-person interviews were postponed.
Attorney General Josh Kaul, who represents the Wisconsin Elections Commission in his official capacity, has raised legal concerns with the investigation.
The Republican-backed election investigation comes after Wisconsin has completed a series of routine state election audits and a presidential recount in the state’s two largest counties. None of those reviews have uncovered widespread fraud or wrongdoing. There have also been numerous Republican-backed lawsuits in the state, all of which have failed to result in findings of wrongdoing by election officials or voters.
Biden won Wisconsin by about 21,000 votes — a margin similar to several other razor-thin statewide elections in recent years.
Wisconsin Public Radio, © Copyright 2022, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Educational Communications Board.
*****************
Wisconsin man who's scanning ballots, conducting election review was convicted of fraud
by Patrick Marley
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
July 12, 2021, 2:21 PM
BEHIND PAYWALL!
A small group of Wisconsinites conducting a review of the presidential election - including a felon convicted of fraud -- hopes soon to scan ballots in Brown County.
The group of about a half dozen volunteers has collected images of about 2 million ballots using the state's open records law, said Gary Walt, a former private investigator who is helping lead the effort. Those involved have visited two Dane County communities to scan ballots and examine them with microscopes.
Assisting Walt is Peter Bernegger of New London, who was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud and mail fraud. A federal judge in Mississippi sentenced him to 70 months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution of $2.1 million.
An appeals court upheld his conviction but lowered his restitution to $1.7 million. Bernegger has spent years fighting his conviction, filing numerous appeals.
Bernegger and Walt declined to name others involved in their ballot effort.
Bernegger early this month said he wasn't ready to talk about all his plans for reviewing the election. He did not answer questions asked later about his conviction.
Walt called Bernegger courageous for his willingness to pursue his election efforts knowing he would be questioned about his conviction.
Bernegger's fraud convictions stem from his involvement in getting people to invest in two startup companies, including one that purported to make gelatin from catfish waste. That company never made any sales, but Bernegger told investors business was going well, according to court documents.
When someone asked him why he didn't tell investors the truth, he responded, "They can't handle the truth," an appeals court noted when it upheld his conviction.
Bernegger and Walt's effort to review the presidential election comes as Republicans in the state Assembly conduct their own examination of it. Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in Wisconsin, as confirmed by recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties and a string of court rulings.
Top Wisconsin Republicans have acknowledged they cannot overturn the results of the election. Walt said he did not believe Republican lawmakers were going far enough with their review of the election but agreed there is no way to put Trump back in office before Biden's term is up.
"We're with Biden for the next three years whether we like it or not," he said. "What my intention is here is the voter integrity."
In mid-June, Bernegger sent an email to Republicans seeking to find volunteers to help with the review of ballots. He told them he was seeking to look at ballots in Brown, Door, Milwaukee, Sauk and Sawyer counties, according to a person who saw the email.
"Peter Bernegger is a convicted fraudster who swindled investors out of more than a million dollars," said a statement from Nellie Sires, executive director of the state Democratic Party. "This is yet another effort to create distrust in our election process and our democracy and won't prove anything we don't already know."
https://www.jsonline.com/restricted/?re ... 9936002%2F
*****************
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
In an open records lawsuit Bernegger filed in December, he claimed 0the executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission] was part of the so-called sect that he alleged "planned, conspired and implemented a massive election fraud" by using fake names and fake addresses to cast ballots. Bernegger alleged the group allowed an unnamed man from Illinois to ... [print] ballots for Biden in a back conference room ... his filing included a hand-drawn floor plan of an election office with a spot labeled "Hidden Room. Someone was sleeping? Snoring?"
*******************
And now that guy, the catfish waste into gelatin scam, make copies of all the ballots, there's a secret sect in a hidden room printing ballots for Biden guy, that guy, well, he was invited by Republicans to give a presentation to the State's assembly elections committee.
******************
PETER BERNEGGER, INVITED BY WISCONSIN GOP TO BRIEF ASSEMBLY ON ELECTION.
[Peter Bernegger] "Someone is using -- we don't know who -- someone is using our systems, our databases, to cast illegal ballots. We have found tens of thousands -- we don't know who's doing it, it's probably not the person who is the name, it's probably some bad guys. Something's wrong. Somebody's in there. Somebody's doing something wrong, casting illegal ballots. Somebody's in there. They're adding names. They're adding fake voters. They're casting illegal ballots by the tens of thousands. So I appreciate your time, and thank you for having me here.
[Crowd] [Claps]
*******************
With little evidence, felon tells Assembly committee there were thousands of illegal votes
by Henry Redman
Wisconsin Examiner
February 10, 2022 6:45 AM
Peter Bernegger’s presentation included a number of slides with unproven claims. (Screenshot | WisEye)
A so-called “database analyst” presented what he said was evidence of millions of illegal voter registrations and hundreds of thousands of illegal votes in the 2020 election to the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections on Wednesday.
Peter Bernegger, the grandson of the founders of sausage company Hillshire Farms who was convicted of bank fraud and mail fraud in 2009, said he’s been working with thousands of volunteers and a “supercomputer” to find evidence of fraud and misconduct in the state’s voter registration system. Despite repeated requests from Democrats on the committee, Bernegger refused to share further evidence or documentation of his allegations.
Bernegger said that his eight-step verification process, which he declined to elaborate on, has allowed his group to find evidence that people illegally voted twice, voted illegally from the wrong address or voted fraudulently in other ways. He also alleged that a “bad guy” could, without anyone noticing, access the state’s voter registration system and re-activate hundreds of thousands of voters who are listed as inactive because they’ve moved or died.
“We all know the official reported results, that Joe Biden won by 20,000 votes, but we have 46,000 people who voted and then were not verified by our system — that calls for a full investigation,” Bernegger said. “We’ve also found, using the supercomputer, there’s more than 1.5 million illegally registered voters in our state.”
Court decisions, recounts and investigations have repeatedly found that Biden won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes and that there is no widespread evidence of fraud.
Bernegger called for a full investigation into his allegations and the dismantling of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Bernegger has previously worked with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who is conducting a widely criticized partisan review of the 2020 election on behalf of Assembly Republicans.
Gableman’s investigation has apparently looked into many of the same issues as Bernegger’s band of volunteers, dragging on for months longer than initially planned and spurring complaints and lawsuits along the way. Earlier this week, a Dane County judge called out Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Burlington) for apparently deleting records related to Gableman’s work.
Election officials and Democrats said that Bernegger is drawing malicious conclusions out of easily explainable occurrences in the statewide voter registration database.
According to an explanation of the statewide system by the WEC’s technology director, odd entries are systematically examined and the built-in checks can resolve any problems — including duplicate registrations or clerical errors in information such as names or addresses.
“These are some odd entries but they all have a story. People forget (or don’t realize) just how many checks are built into the system,” the explainer, provided by WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind, states. “I’d caution that people should apply a critical eye to the spreadsheet snippets and homemade lists circulating. We see a lot of very old and/or inaccurate data being presented as representative of what is in the database.”
Bernegger said there were nefarious actors behind every corner of election administration and the maintenance of the state’s voter lists, allowing thousands of people to cast illegal ballots.
The statewide voter registration list includes more than 7 million entries, which includes years of voters who are still active and many who have been inactivated for various reasons. Despite election officials saying for months that this list isn’t how votes are tracked on Election Day and insisting it isn’t evidence of fraud that active and inactive voter files are stored in the same database, Bernegger repeatedly alleged this leaves the state open to fraud.
“You can see where we have a tremendous amount of inactive registered voters,” he said. “Now this gets to the crux of a problem. We know we have seen it with our own eyes. You could switch an inactive person to active with two clicks. We have seen it with our own eyes. It opens the door to fraud. Anybody in there, you’re talking electronic computer coding. Anybody gets access to the WisVote system, you can go in there, you could flip 100,000 people, vote them, set them back or take them off and nobody would ever know.”
Without evidence, Peter Bernegger told the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee he’d found hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. (Screenshot | WisEye)
Bernegger also raised a number of addresses where there are more voter files than people who live there, even though many of his examples are apartment buildings which could have high tenant turnover year to year.
He spent much of his testimony discussing the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an organization with dozens of member states that use the system to learn when voters move or die. Bernegger alleged that the organization is a plot to give its employees across the country access to sensitive voter information and that it is both improperly providing information and attempting to wrongly register people to vote.
Republicans in the Legislature passed a law requiring Wisconsin to be a member of ERIC and Republican allies previously filed a lawsuit that said the ERIC data is so accurate it must be used to deactivate people’s voter registrations, even if the data wrongly says they’ve moved.
Bernegger also stated that he and his group had filed 450 criminal referrals because of his findings, though he added it was too early to know if any charges would result.
Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls), the committee’s chair and one of the Legislature’s most outspoken election conspiracy theorists, said several times that Bernegger’s testimony was not to be taken as him specifically accusing anyone of fraud and should only be taken as general information. Bernegger’s presentation included several examples of individual voters who he claimed had voted illegally in some way.
“I just wanna make sure you have said that we are looking at this information and we understand that we are not necessarily declaring fraud for anybody,” Brandtjen said. “We are asking questions about the data, the management, the duplication, so I think that [Bernegger] has mentioned several times that we are not claiming on one person, but we do have these questions.”
Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) took issue with that, saying that Brandtjen and Bernegger were giving different signals with Brandtjen saying these allegations should not be looked at specifically but Bernegger offering a number of specific examples in his testimony.
“I just want to be clear, though, that the presentation does draw conclusions about fraud, claiming that some individuals voted twice, talks about tens of thousands of illegally cast ballots to date,” Subeck said. “So, on one hand, you’re saying that there’s no conclusions about fraud, but the speaker is presenting it as if there are conclusions that have been drawn. And while that may be his conclusions, we certainly haven’t seen any documentation to back that up, nor have we seen law enforcement prosecutions to map that out.”
Subeck and Rep. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) repeatedly asked Bernegger for proof to back up his claims outside of the screenshots of spreadsheets he displayed during his testimony. Bernegger refused, only saying he has “government documents” to verify what he’s saying.
Brandtjen was unbothered by Bernegger’s refusal to share his methods or his evidence, saying she understands why he wouldn’t want to give up the processes in the system he’s worked hard to develop.
“I know you’re being a little private about your process because, like I say, I know it’s taken you a lot of months to come up with it,” Brandtjen said. “I am not aware of the full system itself. But I’ve heard from some of your volunteers of the work that is being done.”
Bernegger said several times that he used the U.S. Postal Service’s change of address database to check if someone had actually moved, even though the Democrats repeatedly said there could be lots of reasons why someone would change their mailing address without changing their residential address for purposes of voting — such as going to college or maintaining a vacation home.
“There’s more innuendo here than there is actual evidence,” Spreitzer said.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:33 am
Decision and Order on Motion: The People of the State of New York, by Letitia James v. The Trump Organization, Inc., et al.
by Hon. Arthur Engoron
2/17/2022
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 04: 00 PM] INDEX NO. 451685/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 654
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR ENGORON
Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK,
Petitioner,
-v-
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., DJT HOLDINGS LLC,
DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, SEVEN
SPRINGS LLC, ERIC TRUMP, CHARLES MARTABANO,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, SHERI DILLON,
DONALD J. TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, and DONALD
TRUMP, JR.,
Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
PART: 37
INDEX NO. 451685/2020
MOTION DATE 01/26/2022
MOTION SEQ. NO. 008
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NVSCEF document number (Motion 008) 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416;417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470.471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 632.633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651
were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENAS
Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that the motion by respondents Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. to quash subpoenas issued by petitioner is denied, and petitioner's cross-motion to compel is granted.
Background
The instant special proceeding arises out of an investigation commenced by petitioner, the People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York (hereinafter, "OAG"), into the financial practices of respondent the Trump Organization, its employees, and its affiliates.
Specifically, OAG is investigating whether respondents misstated the value of certain assets on annual financial statements, loan applications, tax submissions, and other official documents, and whether respondents made other material misrepresentations to third parties to secure favorable loan terms and insurance coverage and to obtain tax and other economic benefits.
OAG now claims that it has identified additional facts indicating that the aforesaid documents and others under investigation contain material misstatements and omissions and are materially inconsistent. OAG further states that to determine who is responsible for such alleged misstatements and omissions, it requires the testimony and evidence sought in subpoenas issued to newly joined respondents, Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. (hereinafter, "the New Trump Respondents").
The New Trump Respondents now move to quash the subpoenas or, in the alternative, to stay their enforcement until the conclusion of OAG and/or the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal investigations and/or any other prosecutions of the Trump Organization. OAG now cross-moves to compel compliance with the subject subpoenas.
More than a year ago, at the outset of this special proceeding, this Court held that OAG's investigation, undertaken pursuant to New York Executive Law § 63(12), was lawful. The New Trump Respondents now ask this Court to re-examine the lawfulness of the investigation, arguing that OAG is using the existence of parallel civil and criminal investigations to circumvent the New Trump Respondents' rights under the United States and New York State Constitutions and New York statutory law.
Since this Court last issued a substantive Decision and Order in this case, the nature of OAG's investigation has expanded from purely civil to a civil/criminal hybrid. In a letter dated January 29, 2021, OAG informed the New Trump Respondents and respondent Eric Trump that the evidence reviewed to date could lead to criminal liability and prompt OAG to open a criminal investigation or make a criminal referral. NYSCEF Doc. No. 571. Subsequently, in a letter dated April 27, 2021, OAG informed the New Trump Respondents that "in addition to [OAG's] ongoing civil investigation, [OAG] is also engaged in a criminal investigation." NYSCEF Doc. No. 572.
Additionally, OAG has made numerous public statements confirming its ongoing assistance to the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal investigation into the Trump Organization. See. ~ Statement from Attorney General James on Criminal Indictment of Trump Organization and CFO Weisselberg. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/st ... on-and-cfo, last accessed February 16, 2022.
Discussion
The New Trump Respondents seek two alternative forms of relief: (1) quashing the subpoenas, on the ground that the hybrid civil/criminal investigation conducted by OAG is inherently unconstitutional and, therefore, the tools normally available to OAG (here, its subpoena power) are being used unlawfully; and (2) a stay of the civil, investigation until the conclusion of any criminal investigations on the ground that a stay is necessary to protect the New Trump Respondents' constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Arguments
Both the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution, following in the footsteps of deep-rooted Anglo-Saxon law, guarantee that no witness may be compelled to give testimony that will incriminate himself or herself.
Additionally, New York Criminal Procedure Law 190.40 provides that:
1. Every witness in a grand jury proceeding must give any evidence legally requested of him regardless of any protest or belief on his part that it may tend to incriminate him.
2. A witness who gives evidence in a grand jury proceeding receives immunity unless:
(a) He has effectively waived such immunity pursuant to section 190.45; or
(b) Such evidence is not responsive to any inquiry and is gratuitously given or volunteered by the witness with knowledge that it is not responsive.
(c) The evidence given by the witness consists only of books, papers, records or other physical evidence of an enterprise, as defined in subdivision one of section 175.00 of the penal law, the production of which is required by a subpoena duces tecum, and the witness does not possess a privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the production of such evidence. Any further evidence given by the witness entitles the witness to immunity except as provided in subparagraph1 (a) and (b) of this subdivision.
The New Trump Respondents argue that OAG is "endeavor[ing] to bypass the grand jury protections of New York's Constitution and CPL 190.40." NYSCEF Doc. No. 642 at 8. In support thereof, the New Trump Respondents assert that the issuance of civil subpoenas while a criminal investigation is ongoing allows OAG to extract information from them under the guise of a civil proceeding without OAG's having to offer them the immunity that a grand jury setting would afford them.
This argument completely misses the mark. Neither OAG nor the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has subpoenaed the New Trump Respondents to appear before a grand jury. Indeed, OAG affirms in its reply that it is not conducting a grand jury investigation of respondents. NYSCEF Doc. No. 645 at 2. Furthermore, New York prosecutors do not call the subjects of their criminal investigations to testify before grand juries about their suspected criminal conduct without first securing an immunity waiver. See Carey v Kitson, 93 AD2d 50, 64 (2nd Dep't 1983) (stating in dicta that that case "should again serve as a reminder to law enforcement officials of the consequences of calling a witness before a Grand Jury without obtaining a waiver of immunity"). There is no evidence to support the New Trump Respondents' suggestion that, in the absence of a parallel civil investigation, OAG would have been forced to subpoena the New Trump Respondents to appear before a grand jury, in which case they would have been entitled to immunity under CPL 190.40.
The New Trump Respondents' reliance on United States v Kordel, 397 US 1, 10 (1970), is also unpersuasive. In Kordel, the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutional implications at issue when a governmental entity conducts simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. The Kordel Court upheld the lawfulness of the parallel investigations. Specifically, the Kordel Court held:
Id. at 7-8. The New Trump Respondents' argument overlooks the salient fact that they have an absolute right to refuse to answer questions that they claim may incriminate them. Indeed, respondent Eric Trump invoked his right against self-incrimination in response to more than 500 questions during his one-day deposition arising out of the instant proceeding. NYSCEF Doc. No. 630 at 90.
The New Trump Respondents further cite to dicta in Kordel in which the Court stated:
Id. at 11-12. For all that appears, we are not presented with any of those situations either. OAG pursued its civil investigation for more than a year without the slightest hint that it was a subterfuge to garner evidence for a criminal investigation in the offing. Notably, as discussed during this morning's oral argument, Donald J. Trump was hardly a stranger to the Attorney General's Office when Ms. James was campaigning to head that office. Ms. James' predecessors had investigated Donald J. Trump's "University" and "Foundation" and achieved significant settlements both times. A candidate for Attorney General would have been completely cognizant that, if elected, she would not be writing on a clean slate.
The New Trump Respondents further assert that public statements made by Attorney General Letitia James demonstrate the "impropriety" of her investigation. In support of this argument, they cite to dozens of public statements that James made, during her election campaign and afterward, indicating that she intended to investigate any illegal conduct of respondent Donald J. Trump. The statements range from relatively innocuous ("I believe that the President of these United States can be indicted for criminal offenses") to overtly aggressive ("Oh we're definitely going to sue him. We're gonna be a real pain in his ass. He's going to know my name personally"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 641. Citing Kordel, the New Trump Respondents claim that these statements demonstrate that OAG is acting with the "impropriety" upon which Kordel Court expressly withheld judgment.
However, the New Trump Respondents read Kordel's dicta for far more than it is worth. First, the Kordel Court expressly declined to rule on the situations described in its dicta, and the New Trump Respondents have failed to offer any more recent authority to support any implication that the facts presented here should merit a legal conclusion distinct from that in Kordel. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the Kordel Court had held that those facts require a different outcome, the New Trump Respondents have failed to demonstrate that any of the factual criteria hypothesized in the Kordel dicta are present here. OAG has promptly and repeatedly informed the New Trump Respondents that they could be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution, and OAG's investigation is hardly unsubstantiated. Indeed, this Court's in camera review of the thousands of documents responsive to OAG's prior subpoenas demonstrates that OAG has a sufficient basis for continuing its investigation, which undercuts the notion that this ongoing investigation is based on personal animus, not facts and law.
Moreover, Attorney General James, just like respondent Donald J. Trump, was not deprived of her First Amendment rights to free speech when she was a politician running for a public office with investigatory powers. As the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has observed:
Jones v Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 892 F3d 935, 939 (7th Cir 2018). As has often been said, that a prosecutor dislikes someone does not prevent a prosecution.
Furthermore, the New Trump Respondents' reliance on 303 W. 42nd St. Corp. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686 (1979), is misplaced. In that case the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the New York State and United States Constitutions require an evidentiary hearing when a petitioner challenging an administrative determination demonstrates with reasonable probability that the administrative determination was a result of unconstitutional First Amendment discrimination. While holding that petitioner was entitled to a hearing, the Court found:
Id. at 693 (internal citations omitted). Here, the New Trump Respondents have failed to submit any evidence that the law was not applied to others similarly situated, nor have they submitted any evidence of discrimination based on race, religion, or any other impermissible or arbitrary classification.
For OAG not to have investigated the original respondents, and not to have subpoenaed the New Trump Respondents, would have been a blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft-repeated campaign promise). Indeed, the impetus for the investigation was not personal animus, not racial or ethnic or other discrimination, not campaign promises, but was sworn congressional testimony by former Trump associate Michael Cohen that respondents were "cooking the books." NYSCEF Doc. No. 644. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327, 332 (198'8) ("[ i]n defending his inquiry; the Attorney-General enjoys a presumption that he is acting in good faith").
Additionally, as the New Trump Respondents have failed to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability" of success on the merits, unlike the petitioners in 303 W. 42nd St. Corp., they are not entitled to "an evidentiary hearing before a judicial tribunal." 46 NY2d at 690.
Accordingly, OAG is not violating any rights that CPL 190.40 and the United States and New York State Constitutions afford the New Trump Respondents.
This Court notes in passing, and in dicta, that by letter dated February 9, 2022, Mazars USA LLC ("Mazars") (long-time accountant to respondents the Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump), informed the Trump Organization as follows:
NYSCEF Doc. No. 646. Upon this statement becoming public, on February 14, 2022, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization released the following statement to various media outlets:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... tatements/, last accessed February 16, 2022.
The idea that an accounting firm's announcement that no one should rely on a decade's worth of financial statements that it issued based on numbers submitted by an entity somehow exonerates that entity and renders an investigation into its past practices moot is reminiscent of Lewis Carroll ("When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said ... it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less"); George Orwell ("War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"); and "alternative facts."
The New Trump Respondents' lawyers have submitted serious, substantive, sophisticated legal arguments in support of quashing the subject subpoenas. Although this Court finds those arguments wanting, they are plausible and learned, and counsel made them in good faith. To proclaim that the Mazars' red-flag warning that the Trump financial statements are unreliable suddenly renders the OAG's longstanding investigation moot is as audacious as it is preposterous.
The Discretionary Stay
As an alternative to quashing the subject subpoenas, the New Trump Respondents ask this Court to exercise its discretion by granting a stay pursuant to CPLR 2201, which states: "Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just."
Relying on Access Cap., Inc. v DeCicco, 302 AD2d 48, 52 (1st Dep't 2002), which held "[ i]t is settled that invoking the privilege against self-incrimination is generally an insufficient basis for precluding discovery in a civil matter," OAG asserts that the New Trump Respondents have not demonstrated a sufficient basis for a stay. The New Trump Respondents argue that OAG's reliance on Access Cap., Inc. is baseless, as the facts at issue in that case did not involve the same prosecutor's office working on both a civil and criminal investigation. However, the legal principle remains the same regardless of any factual distinctions. Indeed, it is well settled: "[t]hat defendant's conduct also resulted in a criminal charge against him should not be availed of by him as a shield against a civil suit and prevent plaintiff from expeditiously advancing its claim." Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Inc. v Malon S. Andrus, Inc., 486 F Supp 1118, 1119 (SDNY 1980); see also In re 650 Fifth Ave., 2011 WL 3586169 at 15 (SDNY Aug. 12, 2011), affd 2012 WL 363118 at 1 (SDNY Feb. 2, 2012) (denying stay and holding ''the Constitution does not guarantee that the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights will be without cost in the civil arena").
The target of a hybrid civil/criminal investigation cannot use the Fifth Amendment as both a sword and a shield; a shield against questions and a sword against the investigation itself. When they are deposed, the New Trump Respondents will have the right to refuse to answer any questions that they claim might incriminate them, and that refusal may not be commented on or used against them in a criminal prosecution. However, there is no unfairness in allowing the jurors in a civil case to know these refusals and to draw their own conclusions. EI-Dehdan v EI-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 37 (2015) ("a negative inference may be drawn in the civil context when a party invokes that right against self-incrimination").
Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to issue a stay of OAG's civil investigation into the New Trump Respondents.
The Court has considered the New Trump Respondents' other arguments, including that OAG is violating their right to equal protection, and finds them to be unavailing and/or non-dispositive.
In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities' principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so.
Conclusion
Thus, for the reasons stated herein, the motion of respondents Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. to quash the subpoenas that the New York State Office of Attorney General issued to them or, in the alternative, to stay petitioner's civil investigation, is hereby denied, and petitioner's cross-motion to compel is hereby granted. Respondent Donald J. Trump is hereby ordered: (1) to comply in full, within 14 days of the date of this order, with that portion of the Office of the Attorney General's subpoena seeking documents and information; and (2) to appear for a deposition within 21 days of the date of this order. Respondents Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are also hereby ordered to appear for depositions within 21 days of the date of this order.
2/17/2022
DATE
ARTHUR ENGORON, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE:
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
OTHER
by Hon. Arthur Engoron
2/17/2022
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 04: 00 PM] INDEX NO. 451685/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 654
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR ENGORON
Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK,
Petitioner,
-v-
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., DJT HOLDINGS LLC,
DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, SEVEN
SPRINGS LLC, ERIC TRUMP, CHARLES MARTABANO,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, SHERI DILLON,
DONALD J. TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, and DONALD
TRUMP, JR.,
Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
PART: 37
INDEX NO. 451685/2020
MOTION DATE 01/26/2022
MOTION SEQ. NO. 008
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NVSCEF document number (Motion 008) 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416;417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470.471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 632.633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651
were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENAS
Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that the motion by respondents Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. to quash subpoenas issued by petitioner is denied, and petitioner's cross-motion to compel is granted.
Background
The instant special proceeding arises out of an investigation commenced by petitioner, the People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York (hereinafter, "OAG"), into the financial practices of respondent the Trump Organization, its employees, and its affiliates.
Specifically, OAG is investigating whether respondents misstated the value of certain assets on annual financial statements, loan applications, tax submissions, and other official documents, and whether respondents made other material misrepresentations to third parties to secure favorable loan terms and insurance coverage and to obtain tax and other economic benefits.
OAG now claims that it has identified additional facts indicating that the aforesaid documents and others under investigation contain material misstatements and omissions and are materially inconsistent. OAG further states that to determine who is responsible for such alleged misstatements and omissions, it requires the testimony and evidence sought in subpoenas issued to newly joined respondents, Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. (hereinafter, "the New Trump Respondents").
The New Trump Respondents now move to quash the subpoenas or, in the alternative, to stay their enforcement until the conclusion of OAG and/or the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal investigations and/or any other prosecutions of the Trump Organization. OAG now cross-moves to compel compliance with the subject subpoenas.
More than a year ago, at the outset of this special proceeding, this Court held that OAG's investigation, undertaken pursuant to New York Executive Law § 63(12), was lawful. The New Trump Respondents now ask this Court to re-examine the lawfulness of the investigation, arguing that OAG is using the existence of parallel civil and criminal investigations to circumvent the New Trump Respondents' rights under the United States and New York State Constitutions and New York statutory law.
Since this Court last issued a substantive Decision and Order in this case, the nature of OAG's investigation has expanded from purely civil to a civil/criminal hybrid. In a letter dated January 29, 2021, OAG informed the New Trump Respondents and respondent Eric Trump that the evidence reviewed to date could lead to criminal liability and prompt OAG to open a criminal investigation or make a criminal referral. NYSCEF Doc. No. 571. Subsequently, in a letter dated April 27, 2021, OAG informed the New Trump Respondents that "in addition to [OAG's] ongoing civil investigation, [OAG] is also engaged in a criminal investigation." NYSCEF Doc. No. 572.
Additionally, OAG has made numerous public statements confirming its ongoing assistance to the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal investigation into the Trump Organization. See. ~ Statement from Attorney General James on Criminal Indictment of Trump Organization and CFO Weisselberg. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/st ... on-and-cfo, last accessed February 16, 2022.
Discussion
The New Trump Respondents seek two alternative forms of relief: (1) quashing the subpoenas, on the ground that the hybrid civil/criminal investigation conducted by OAG is inherently unconstitutional and, therefore, the tools normally available to OAG (here, its subpoena power) are being used unlawfully; and (2) a stay of the civil, investigation until the conclusion of any criminal investigations on the ground that a stay is necessary to protect the New Trump Respondents' constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Arguments
Both the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution, following in the footsteps of deep-rooted Anglo-Saxon law, guarantee that no witness may be compelled to give testimony that will incriminate himself or herself.
Additionally, New York Criminal Procedure Law 190.40 provides that:
1. Every witness in a grand jury proceeding must give any evidence legally requested of him regardless of any protest or belief on his part that it may tend to incriminate him.
2. A witness who gives evidence in a grand jury proceeding receives immunity unless:
(a) He has effectively waived such immunity pursuant to section 190.45; or
(b) Such evidence is not responsive to any inquiry and is gratuitously given or volunteered by the witness with knowledge that it is not responsive.
(c) The evidence given by the witness consists only of books, papers, records or other physical evidence of an enterprise, as defined in subdivision one of section 175.00 of the penal law, the production of which is required by a subpoena duces tecum, and the witness does not possess a privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the production of such evidence. Any further evidence given by the witness entitles the witness to immunity except as provided in subparagraph1 (a) and (b) of this subdivision.
The New Trump Respondents argue that OAG is "endeavor[ing] to bypass the grand jury protections of New York's Constitution and CPL 190.40." NYSCEF Doc. No. 642 at 8. In support thereof, the New Trump Respondents assert that the issuance of civil subpoenas while a criminal investigation is ongoing allows OAG to extract information from them under the guise of a civil proceeding without OAG's having to offer them the immunity that a grand jury setting would afford them.
This argument completely misses the mark. Neither OAG nor the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has subpoenaed the New Trump Respondents to appear before a grand jury. Indeed, OAG affirms in its reply that it is not conducting a grand jury investigation of respondents. NYSCEF Doc. No. 645 at 2. Furthermore, New York prosecutors do not call the subjects of their criminal investigations to testify before grand juries about their suspected criminal conduct without first securing an immunity waiver. See Carey v Kitson, 93 AD2d 50, 64 (2nd Dep't 1983) (stating in dicta that that case "should again serve as a reminder to law enforcement officials of the consequences of calling a witness before a Grand Jury without obtaining a waiver of immunity"). There is no evidence to support the New Trump Respondents' suggestion that, in the absence of a parallel civil investigation, OAG would have been forced to subpoena the New Trump Respondents to appear before a grand jury, in which case they would have been entitled to immunity under CPL 190.40.
The New Trump Respondents' reliance on United States v Kordel, 397 US 1, 10 (1970), is also unpersuasive. In Kordel, the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutional implications at issue when a governmental entity conducts simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. The Kordel Court upheld the lawfulness of the parallel investigations. Specifically, the Kordel Court held:
For [respondent] need not have answered the interrogatories. Without question he could have invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Surely [respondent] was not barred from asserting his privilege [simply] because the proceeding in which the Government sought information was civil rather than criminal in character.
Id. at 7-8. The New Trump Respondents' argument overlooks the salient fact that they have an absolute right to refuse to answer questions that they claim may incriminate them. Indeed, respondent Eric Trump invoked his right against self-incrimination in response to more than 500 questions during his one-day deposition arising out of the instant proceeding. NYSCEF Doc. No. 630 at 90.
The New Trump Respondents further cite to dicta in Kordel in which the Court stated:
We do not deal here with a case where the Government has brought a civil action solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution or has failed to advise the defendant in its civil proceeding that it contemplates his criminal prosecution; nor with a case where the defendant is without counselor reasonably fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; nor with any other special circumstances that might suggest the unconstitutionality or even the impropriety of this criminal prosecution.
Id. at 11-12. For all that appears, we are not presented with any of those situations either. OAG pursued its civil investigation for more than a year without the slightest hint that it was a subterfuge to garner evidence for a criminal investigation in the offing. Notably, as discussed during this morning's oral argument, Donald J. Trump was hardly a stranger to the Attorney General's Office when Ms. James was campaigning to head that office. Ms. James' predecessors had investigated Donald J. Trump's "University" and "Foundation" and achieved significant settlements both times. A candidate for Attorney General would have been completely cognizant that, if elected, she would not be writing on a clean slate.
The New Trump Respondents further assert that public statements made by Attorney General Letitia James demonstrate the "impropriety" of her investigation. In support of this argument, they cite to dozens of public statements that James made, during her election campaign and afterward, indicating that she intended to investigate any illegal conduct of respondent Donald J. Trump. The statements range from relatively innocuous ("I believe that the President of these United States can be indicted for criminal offenses") to overtly aggressive ("Oh we're definitely going to sue him. We're gonna be a real pain in his ass. He's going to know my name personally"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 641. Citing Kordel, the New Trump Respondents claim that these statements demonstrate that OAG is acting with the "impropriety" upon which Kordel Court expressly withheld judgment.
However, the New Trump Respondents read Kordel's dicta for far more than it is worth. First, the Kordel Court expressly declined to rule on the situations described in its dicta, and the New Trump Respondents have failed to offer any more recent authority to support any implication that the facts presented here should merit a legal conclusion distinct from that in Kordel. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the Kordel Court had held that those facts require a different outcome, the New Trump Respondents have failed to demonstrate that any of the factual criteria hypothesized in the Kordel dicta are present here. OAG has promptly and repeatedly informed the New Trump Respondents that they could be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution, and OAG's investigation is hardly unsubstantiated. Indeed, this Court's in camera review of the thousands of documents responsive to OAG's prior subpoenas demonstrates that OAG has a sufficient basis for continuing its investigation, which undercuts the notion that this ongoing investigation is based on personal animus, not facts and law.
Moreover, Attorney General James, just like respondent Donald J. Trump, was not deprived of her First Amendment rights to free speech when she was a politician running for a public office with investigatory powers. As the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has observed:
Any effort by the judiciary to stop one politician from proposing and advocating steps that injure another politician would do more to violate the First Amendment (the right to advocate one's view of good policy is the core of free speech) than to vindicate the Equal Protection Clause ... A class-of-one claim cannot be used to attack political practices that are valid as a general matter but bear especially hard on one politician.
Jones v Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 892 F3d 935, 939 (7th Cir 2018). As has often been said, that a prosecutor dislikes someone does not prevent a prosecution.
Furthermore, the New Trump Respondents' reliance on 303 W. 42nd St. Corp. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686 (1979), is misplaced. In that case the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the New York State and United States Constitutions require an evidentiary hearing when a petitioner challenging an administrative determination demonstrates with reasonable probability that the administrative determination was a result of unconstitutional First Amendment discrimination. While holding that petitioner was entitled to a hearing, the Court found:
The underlying right asserted by petitioner is to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and the New York State Constitution (art I, § 11), one of the governing principles of our society. As enunciated more than a century ago in Yick Wo v Hopkins (118 US 356, 373-374), it forbids a public authority from applying or enforcing an admittedly valid law "with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances". We have recognized the principle in cases involving the enforcement of the criminal laws and the administrative regulation of public health, safety and morals. To invoke the right successfully, however, both the "unequal hand" and the "evil eye" requirements must be proven --to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification.
Id. at 693 (internal citations omitted). Here, the New Trump Respondents have failed to submit any evidence that the law was not applied to others similarly situated, nor have they submitted any evidence of discrimination based on race, religion, or any other impermissible or arbitrary classification.
For OAG not to have investigated the original respondents, and not to have subpoenaed the New Trump Respondents, would have been a blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft-repeated campaign promise). Indeed, the impetus for the investigation was not personal animus, not racial or ethnic or other discrimination, not campaign promises, but was sworn congressional testimony by former Trump associate Michael Cohen that respondents were "cooking the books." NYSCEF Doc. No. 644. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327, 332 (198'8) ("[ i]n defending his inquiry; the Attorney-General enjoys a presumption that he is acting in good faith").
Additionally, as the New Trump Respondents have failed to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability" of success on the merits, unlike the petitioners in 303 W. 42nd St. Corp., they are not entitled to "an evidentiary hearing before a judicial tribunal." 46 NY2d at 690.
Accordingly, OAG is not violating any rights that CPL 190.40 and the United States and New York State Constitutions afford the New Trump Respondents.
This Court notes in passing, and in dicta, that by letter dated February 9, 2022, Mazars USA LLC ("Mazars") (long-time accountant to respondents the Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump), informed the Trump Organization as follows:
[T]he Statements of Financial Condition for Donald J. Trump for the years ending June 30, 2011 - June 30, 2020, should no longer be relied upon and you should inform any recipients thereof who are currently relying upon one or more of those documents that those documents should not be relied upon.
We have come to this conclusion based, in part, upon the filings made by the New York Attorney General on January 18, 2022, our own investigation, and information received from internal and external sources. While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based upon the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate.
As we have stated in the Statements of Financial Condition, Mazars performed its work in accordance with professional standards.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 646. Upon this statement becoming public, on February 14, 2022, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization released the following statement to various media outlets:
[Mazars'] February 9, 2022 letter confirms that after conducting a subsequent review of all prior statements of financial condition, Mazars' work was performed in accordance with all applicable accounting standards and principles and that such statements of financial condition do not contain any material discrepancies. This confirmation effectively renders the investigations by the DA and AG moot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... tatements/, last accessed February 16, 2022.
The idea that an accounting firm's announcement that no one should rely on a decade's worth of financial statements that it issued based on numbers submitted by an entity somehow exonerates that entity and renders an investigation into its past practices moot is reminiscent of Lewis Carroll ("When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said ... it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less"); George Orwell ("War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"); and "alternative facts."
The New Trump Respondents' lawyers have submitted serious, substantive, sophisticated legal arguments in support of quashing the subject subpoenas. Although this Court finds those arguments wanting, they are plausible and learned, and counsel made them in good faith. To proclaim that the Mazars' red-flag warning that the Trump financial statements are unreliable suddenly renders the OAG's longstanding investigation moot is as audacious as it is preposterous.
The Discretionary Stay
As an alternative to quashing the subject subpoenas, the New Trump Respondents ask this Court to exercise its discretion by granting a stay pursuant to CPLR 2201, which states: "Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just."
Relying on Access Cap., Inc. v DeCicco, 302 AD2d 48, 52 (1st Dep't 2002), which held "[ i]t is settled that invoking the privilege against self-incrimination is generally an insufficient basis for precluding discovery in a civil matter," OAG asserts that the New Trump Respondents have not demonstrated a sufficient basis for a stay. The New Trump Respondents argue that OAG's reliance on Access Cap., Inc. is baseless, as the facts at issue in that case did not involve the same prosecutor's office working on both a civil and criminal investigation. However, the legal principle remains the same regardless of any factual distinctions. Indeed, it is well settled: "[t]hat defendant's conduct also resulted in a criminal charge against him should not be availed of by him as a shield against a civil suit and prevent plaintiff from expeditiously advancing its claim." Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Inc. v Malon S. Andrus, Inc., 486 F Supp 1118, 1119 (SDNY 1980); see also In re 650 Fifth Ave., 2011 WL 3586169 at 15 (SDNY Aug. 12, 2011), affd 2012 WL 363118 at 1 (SDNY Feb. 2, 2012) (denying stay and holding ''the Constitution does not guarantee that the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights will be without cost in the civil arena").
The target of a hybrid civil/criminal investigation cannot use the Fifth Amendment as both a sword and a shield; a shield against questions and a sword against the investigation itself. When they are deposed, the New Trump Respondents will have the right to refuse to answer any questions that they claim might incriminate them, and that refusal may not be commented on or used against them in a criminal prosecution. However, there is no unfairness in allowing the jurors in a civil case to know these refusals and to draw their own conclusions. EI-Dehdan v EI-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 37 (2015) ("a negative inference may be drawn in the civil context when a party invokes that right against self-incrimination").
Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to issue a stay of OAG's civil investigation into the New Trump Respondents.
The Court has considered the New Trump Respondents' other arguments, including that OAG is violating their right to equal protection, and finds them to be unavailing and/or non-dispositive.
In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities' principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so.
Conclusion
Thus, for the reasons stated herein, the motion of respondents Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. to quash the subpoenas that the New York State Office of Attorney General issued to them or, in the alternative, to stay petitioner's civil investigation, is hereby denied, and petitioner's cross-motion to compel is hereby granted. Respondent Donald J. Trump is hereby ordered: (1) to comply in full, within 14 days of the date of this order, with that portion of the Office of the Attorney General's subpoena seeking documents and information; and (2) to appear for a deposition within 21 days of the date of this order. Respondents Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are also hereby ordered to appear for depositions within 21 days of the date of this order.
2/17/2022
DATE
ARTHUR ENGORON, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE:
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
OTHER
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:56 am
The National Archives confirms it found classified materials at Mar-a-Lago
by Zoe Christen Jones
CBS News
FEBRUARY 18, 2022 / 5:57 PM / CBS NEWS
The National Archives and Records Administration found classified materials in the 15 boxes of records it retrieved from former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago, according to a letter sent to the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform on Friday.
"NARA has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes," archivist David S. Ferriero wrote in the letter. "Because NARA identified classified information in the boxes, NARA staff has been in communication with the Department of Justice."
Also in his letter, Ferriero said the National Archives found certain social media records were not captured and preserved, and Trump administration staffers "conducted official business using non-official electronic messaging accounts that were not copied or forwarded into their official electronic messaging accounts." It is working to get the missing records.
Ferriero also confirmed that some of the records it received from the Trump administration had been torn up. A portion of them had been taped back together by White House staff, while others had not been reconstructed.
Ferriero said the National Archives is still in the process of inventorying all 15 boxes but expects to be finished by February 25.
The letter was sent to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating Trump's record-keeping practices, after it requested information from Ferriero about the boxes.
The National Archives obtained the presidential documents and communications from Trump's Florida residence last month. Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, sitting presidents and their staff are required to preserve all memos, letters, emails, documents and official communications related to the president and then transfer them to the National Archives after the end of their term.
Earlier this month, the National Archives reportedly asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump's handling of presidential documents.
The Justice Department did not comment on a possible investigation, nor did the National Archives. "We do not comment on potential or ongoing investigations," a National Archives spokesperson said.
The National Archives' request does not mean an official investigation has begun, but is standard procedure in the case of potential criminal violations, a source told CBS News.
Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.
Trump has pushed back against the narrative that he willfully destroyed important documents, saying the transfer of the boxes to the National Archives was an important step in preserving records from his administration.
"The media's characterization of my relationship with NARA is Fake News. It was exactly the opposite!" Trump said. "It was a great honor to work with NARA to help formally preserve the Trump Legacy."
Zak Hudak and Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.
by Zoe Christen Jones
CBS News
FEBRUARY 18, 2022 / 5:57 PM / CBS NEWS
The National Archives and Records Administration found classified materials in the 15 boxes of records it retrieved from former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago, according to a letter sent to the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform on Friday.
"NARA has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes," archivist David S. Ferriero wrote in the letter. "Because NARA identified classified information in the boxes, NARA staff has been in communication with the Department of Justice."
Also in his letter, Ferriero said the National Archives found certain social media records were not captured and preserved, and Trump administration staffers "conducted official business using non-official electronic messaging accounts that were not copied or forwarded into their official electronic messaging accounts." It is working to get the missing records.
Ferriero also confirmed that some of the records it received from the Trump administration had been torn up. A portion of them had been taped back together by White House staff, while others had not been reconstructed.
Ferriero said the National Archives is still in the process of inventorying all 15 boxes but expects to be finished by February 25.
The letter was sent to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating Trump's record-keeping practices, after it requested information from Ferriero about the boxes.
The National Archives obtained the presidential documents and communications from Trump's Florida residence last month. Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, sitting presidents and their staff are required to preserve all memos, letters, emails, documents and official communications related to the president and then transfer them to the National Archives after the end of their term.
Earlier this month, the National Archives reportedly asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump's handling of presidential documents.
The Justice Department did not comment on a possible investigation, nor did the National Archives. "We do not comment on potential or ongoing investigations," a National Archives spokesperson said.
The National Archives' request does not mean an official investigation has begun, but is standard procedure in the case of potential criminal violations, a source told CBS News.
Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.
Trump has pushed back against the narrative that he willfully destroyed important documents, saying the transfer of the boxes to the National Archives was an important step in preserving records from his administration.
"The media's characterization of my relationship with NARA is Fake News. It was exactly the opposite!" Trump said. "It was a great honor to work with NARA to help formally preserve the Trump Legacy."
Zak Hudak and Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36174
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests