Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

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

Postby admin » Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:12 am

Inside the Panic at Fox News After the 2020 Election: “If we hadn’t called Arizona,” said Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive, according to a recording reviewed by The New York Times, “our ratings would have been bigger.”
by Peter Baker
New York Times
March 4, 2023

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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


WASHINGTON — A little more than a week after television networks called the 2020 presidential election for Joseph R. Biden Jr., top executives and anchors at Fox News held an after-action meeting to figure out how they had messed up.

Not because they had gotten the key call wrong — but because they had gotten it right. And they had gotten it right before anyone else.

Typically, it is a point of pride for a news network to be the first to project election winners. But Fox is no typical news network, and in the days following the 2020 vote, it was besieged with angry protests not only from President Donald J. Trump’s camp but from its own viewers because it had called the battleground state of Arizona for Mr. Biden. Never mind that the call was correct; Fox executives worried that they would lose viewers to hard-right competitors like Newsmax.

And so, on Monday, Nov. 16, 2020, Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, and Jay Wallace, the network’s president, convened a Zoom meeting for an extraordinary discussion with an unusual goal, according to a recording of the call reviewed by The New York Times: How to keep from angering the network’s conservative audience again by calling an election for a Democrat before the competition.

Maybe, the Fox executives mused, they should abandon the sophisticated new election-projecting system in which Fox had invested millions of dollars and revert to the slower, less accurate model. Or maybe they should base calls not solely on numbers but on how viewers might react. Or maybe they should delay calls, even if they were right, to keep the audience in suspense and boost viewership.

“Listen, it’s one of the sad realities: If we hadn’t called Arizona, those three or four days following Election Day, our ratings would have been bigger,” Ms. Scott said. “The mystery would have been still hanging out there.”

Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the two main anchors, suggested it was not enough to call a state based on numerical calculations, the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations, but that viewer reaction should be considered. “In a Trump environment,” Ms. MacCallum said, “the game is just very, very different.”

The conversation captured the sense of crisis enveloping Fox after the election and underscored its unique role in the conservative political ecosystem. The network’s conduct in this period has come under intense scrutiny in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems.

Court filings in recent days revealed that Fox executives and hosts considered fraud claims by the Trump camp to be “really crazy stuff,” as Rupert Murdoch, the head of the Fox media empire, put it, yet pushed them on air anyway. The recording of the Nov. 16 meeting adds further context to the atmosphere inside the network at that time, when executives were on the defensive because of their Arizona call and feared alienating Mr. Trump and his supporters.

In a statement on Saturday, the network said: “Fox News stood by the Arizona call despite intense scrutiny. Given the extremely narrow 0.3 percent margin and a new projection mechanism that no other network had, of course there would be a wide-ranging post-mortem surrounding the call and how it was executed no matter the candidates.”

In the cross hairs now is Ms. Scott, who joined the network at its inception in 1996 as a programming assistant and worked her way up to become chief executive in 2018. Media analysts have speculated that she may take the fall; Mr. Murdoch testified in a deposition that executives who knowingly allowed lies to be broadcast “should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.” But Fox later put out word that she was not in danger.

Ms. Scott was among the executives who grew alarmed after the network’s Decision Desk called Arizona for Mr. Biden at 11:20 p.m. on election night on Nov. 3, 2020, a projection that infuriated Mr. Trump and his aides because it was a swing state that could foreshadow the overall result. No other network called Arizona that night, although The Associated Press did several hours later, and the Fox journalists who made the call stood by their judgment.

At 8:30 the next morning, Ms. Scott suggested Fox not call any more states until certified by authorities, a formal process that could take days or weeks. She was talked out of that. But the next day, with Mr. Biden’s lead in Arizona narrowing, Mr. Baier noted that Mr. Trump’s campaign was angry and suggested reversing the call. “It’s hurting us,” he wrote Mr. Wallace and others in a previously reported email. “The sooner we pull it even if it gives us major egg. And put it back in his column. The better we are. In my opinion.”

Arizona had never been in Mr. Trump’s column, and the Decision Desk overseen by Bill Sammon, the managing editor for Washington, resisted giving it “back” to a candidate who was losing just to satisfy critics.

But on Friday night, Nov. 6, when Mr. Sammon’s team was ready to call Nevada for Mr. Biden, sealing his victory, Mr. Wallace refused to air it. “I’m not there yet since it’s for all the marbles — just a heavier burden than an individual state call,” Mr. Wallace wrote in a text message obtained by The Times.

Rather than be the first to call the election winner, Fox became the last. CNN declared Mr. Biden the victor the next day at 11:24 a.m., followed by the other networks. Fox did not concur until 11:40 a.m., some 14 hours after Mr. Sammon’s election team internally concluded the race was over.

While Mr. Biden held onto Arizona by 10,000 votes, the explosive fallout from the Fox call panicked the network. Viewers erupted. Ratings fell. “I’ve never seen a reaction like this, to any media company,” Tucker Carlson told Ms. Scott in a Nov. 9 message released in a court filing. Ms. Scott complained to a colleague that Mr. Sammon did not understand “the impact to the brand and the arrogance in calling AZ” and it was his job “to protect the brand.”

On Nov. 16, Ms. Scott and Mr. Wallace convened the Zoom meeting to discuss the Arizona decision. Mr. Sammon and Arnon Mishkin, the director of the Decision Desk, were included. Chris Stirewalt, the political editor who had gone on air to defend the call, was not.

Ms. Scott invited Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum, “the face” of the network, as she called them, to describe the heat they were taking, according to the recording reviewed by The Times.

“We are still getting bombarded,” Mr. Baier said. “It became really hurtful.” He said projections were not enough to call a state when it would be so sensitive. “I know the statistics and the numbers, but there has to be, like, this other layer” so they could “think beyond, about the implications.”

Ms. MacCallum agreed: “There’s just obviously been a tremendous amount of backlash, which is, I think, more than any of us anticipated. And so there’s that layer between statistics and news judgment about timing that I think is a factor.” For “a loud faction of our viewership,” she said, the call was a blow.

Neither she nor Mr. Baier explained exactly what they meant by another “layer.” A person who was in the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said on Saturday that Mr. Baier had been talking about process because he was upset the Decision Desk had made the Arizona call without letting the anchors know first.

Fox reached its call earlier than other networks because of the cutting-edge system that it developed after the 2016 election, a system tested during the 2018 midterm elections with great success — Fox projected that Democrats would capture the House before its competitors. But now Mr. Wallace was having second thoughts.

“We created a new mousetrap,” he said. But he asked, “Was the mousetrap too good?” He added: “Part of me is like: Oh, should we have been more conservative and should we have stuck with N.E.P.,” the National Election Pool used by other networks. “Would that have changed things? Would there still be this ire?”

Mr. Mishkin acknowledged that the Arizona call seemed “premature” but noted that “it did land correctly” and that Fox rightly made clear it was “a dogfight in the Electoral College.” Mr. Sammon stood by the call. “If I may defend the Decision Desk for a moment, they got all 50 states right,” he said. “We called Arizona. It was a good call. It held up.”

Ms. Scott pressed Mr. Sammon to admit that Arizona “became much closer than even you anticipated it becoming.”

He pushed back. “From a statistical standpoint,” he said, “I literally never worried about the Arizona call. From a lot of other standpoints it was very painful for reasons that we’re all aware of. But statistically, I really was very confident in that call. That’s just the truth.”

Ms. Scott agreed it was important to be right. “But I think we’re living in a new world in a sense, where half of the voting population doesn’t believe in big corporations, big tech, big media,” she said. “There’s a lack of trust. And when they feel like things are being done behind closed doors in rooms that they can’t understand, it exacerbates the emotion and how they feel about the process.”

Tom Lowell, the managing editor for news, said Fox had been left “as the canary in this nasty coal mine,” suggesting other networks had deliberately delayed calls out of malice. “I think some outlets willfully held back calls that they probably could have made to watch us twist in the wind,” he said.

Ms. Scott asserted that CNN had delayed to hold viewer attention. “CNN historically I think has always been late because — purely for ratings,” she said. “And I think you have to ask yourself, is that a good enough reason? Trust, public trust, viewership, I mean there’s different parameters.”

She added that she was merely “raising the questions” about holding back calls. “There is a philosophy around that.” (Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman, on Saturday denied holding back calls for ratings, saying its journalists “make calls as soon as we’re confident they’re right.”)

The Arizona dispute was not an abstract discussion. Georgia would soon hold runoff elections for two Senate seats that would determine control of the chamber. The question was raised about how to call those races given that Republicans seemed favored to win.

“If we’re going to be first to call the Senate for G.O.P. control, that’s OK too,” Mr. Baier said, prompting awkward laughs. (The person in the meeting said Mr. Baier was joking.)

What no one said at the meeting was that Ms. Scott would not let Mr. Sammon’s team risk the network’s brand again. She decided to push out Mr. Sammon and Mr. Stirewalt, but fearing criticism for firing journalists who had gotten the call right, opted to wait until after Georgia.

Mr. Murdoch was not keen on waiting. On Nov. 20, four days after the Zoom meeting, according to documents filed by Dominion, he told Ms. Scott, “Maybe best to let Bill go right away,” which would “be a big message with Trump people.”

Mr. Sammon, who had called every election correctly over 12 years at Fox and had just been offered a new three-year contract, was told that same day that his contract would not be renewed after all. He heard not from Fox but from his lawyer, Robert Barnett. Mr. Stirewalt was out too.

Fox would, in the end, wait until after Georgia to announce the purge, without attributing it to the Arizona call. Mr. Sammon, who negotiated a severance package, would call his departure a “retirement,” while Stirewalt’s dismissal was characterized as a “restructuring.”

Three weeks later, Fox announced a new multiyear contract extension for Ms. Scott.

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

Busted: Fox News caught on secret recording amid billion dollar lawsuit for peddling lies
by Ari Melber
MSNBC
Mar 6, 2023 #msnbc #foxnews #rupertmurdoch

MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on a bombshell leak in the billion dollar legal earthquake rocking Fox News and its Chief Rupert Murdoch. The New York Times obtaining a recording of a Zoom meeting with Fox’s CEO and the network’s top anchors, which reveals an internal panic over losing viewers for reporting accurate facts. CEO Suzanne Scott saying “if we hadn’t called Arizona… our ratings would have been even bigger.” (This is an excerpt of the full discussion that aired on MSNBC). Check out the video playlist for "The Beat with Ari Melber": http://www.msnbc.com/ari



Transcript

0:01
THESE TRULY EXTRAORDINARY TIMES.
0:02
WE ARE GRATEFUL.
0:03
"THE BEAT" WITH ARI MELBER
0:05
STARTS RIGHT NOW.
0:06
>> I'M ARI MELBER.
0:07
THE TOP STORY ROCKING
0:08
CONSERVATIVE POLITICS AND FOX
0:09
NEWS TONIGHT IS A HUGE NEW LEAK
0:11
ABOUT THIS MOMENT IN 2020 WHEN
0:13
FOX NEWS ACCURATELY REPORTED
0:15
BIDEN WON ARIZONA, WHICH STOKED
0:17
A MAGA BACKLASH WHICH UPENDED
0:20
THE NETWORK, FED THE SERIES OF
0:24
JOURNALISTS -- THAT FOX NOW IS
0:26
FACING POTENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
0:28
FOR, POTENTIALLY OVER A BILLION
0:30
DOLLARS IN LAWSUIT FINES.
0:31
IT'S ALSO NOW LED TO THE
0:33
ABSOLUTE BLOCKBUSTER LEAK TO
0:38
"THE NEW YORK TIMES."
0:38
IF YOU'RE THINK, OR I HEARD
0:40
ABOUT OTHER LEAKS, THIS ONE IS
0:42
DIFFERENT AND NEW AND NARRATES A
0:45
SECRET MEETING BETWEEN FOX EXECS
0:47
AND HOSTS ABOUT THAT ARIZONA
0:54
CALL.
0:54
AN INTERNAL FREAKOUT WHERE
0:56
VIEWERS WERE MAD AND BAILING ON
0:58
FOX BECAUSE THEY REPORTED IN
0:59
THAT INSTANCE, ONE, UNDENIABLE
1:02
FACT ABOUT THE ELECTION.
1:03
AND THE EXECUTIVES AND ANCHORS,
1:05
GREAT BARE AND MAR THAT
1:07
McCOLLUM, ON THIS CALL THEY
1:09
DISCUSS THEY WERE LOSING VIEWERS
1:10
BECAUSE THEY CORRECTLY CALLED
1:12
ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.
1:13
AND THEN THEY DISCUSS WHETHER
1:14
THE COMPANY SHOULD REVERSE THAT
1:17
CALL, AS A KIND OF LIE TO
1:20
APPEASE ANGRY TRUMP VIEWER OR
1:22
CHANGE THEIR ENTIRE ELECTION
1:23
COVERAGE GOING FORWARD,
1:24
BASICALLY SAYING, TELLING THE
1:25
TRUTH IN THIS INSTANCE HAS
1:31
REVERBERATED SO POORLY, MAYBE WE
1:32
SHOULD STOP TELLING THE TRUTH.
1:34
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DAMNING AND
1:37
INCRIMINATING STUFF.
1:37
KEEP IN MIND BEFORE WE GO
1:39
FURTHER, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW
1:40
YOU THE RECEIPTS -- NEWS OUTLET
1:44
DO NOT AUTOCRACY OFF REPORTING
1:46
TO THE HIGHEST AUDIENCE.
1:47
THEY DON'T STATE KNOWING
1:51
FALSEHOODS ONLY FOR RATINGS.
1:52
OF ALL THE VALID CRITIQUE FOR
1:54
MEDIA, AND THERE ARE MANY, THIS
1:55
TYPE OF THING, JUST CANCELING AN
1:57
ELECTION CALL OR REVERSING IT,
1:59
THIS DOESN'T EVEN COME UP.
2:00
NO LEGITIMATE NEWS ORGANIZATION
2:01
HAS FACED EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING
2:03
LIKE THIS IN ITS ELECTION
2:05
COVERAGE IN THE MODERN ERA.
2:06
IN ORDER, IF YOU'RE LISTENING TO
2:08
THIS STORY AND GOING, WELL, I
2:09
HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS WHO
2:12
CRITICIZE THE PRESS, SURE, THOSE
2:15
CRITIQUES ARE VALID.
2:16
THE A CRITIQUES ABOUT THE PRESS,
2:19
BIAS, SELECTIVE COVERAGE,
2:20
CORPORATE INTERFERENCE, NONE OF
2:21
THAT GOES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
2:22
THIS -- A FOX CEO NOW CAUGHT ON
2:27
TAPE SAYING, IF WE HADN'T CALLED
2:28
ARIZONA ACCURATELY, OUR RATINGS
2:30
WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER.
2:31
AND GIVES AWAY THE GAME BY
2:33
SAYING IT WAS BAD THAT FOX'S
2:34
ELECTION EFFORT TOLD THE TRUTH
2:36
ABOUT ARIZONA, SAYING, AGAIN,
2:39
FROM THIS NEWLY LEAKED CALL IT
2:40
WAS NOT TO DO ACTUAL ELECTION
2:44
COVERAGE IT WAS TO, QUOTE,
2:45
PROTECT THE BRAND.
2:45
WHEN FOX'S OWN ELECTION EXPERT
2:47
PUSHES BACK -- WE'RE SEEING
2:49
BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF HIGH LEVEL
2:51
STUFF YOU NEVER NORMALLY SEE.
2:54
THE EXPERT PUSHES BACK, SAYS
2:55
THEY HAD THE CALL RIGHT, WHICH
2:57
IS TRUE.
2:57
THEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
2:58
REPORTS THAT THE FOX CEO SCOTT
3:02
AGREED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE
3:02
RIGHT BUCK QUOTE, I THINK WE'RE
3:04
LIVING IN A NEW WORLD IN A
3:05
SENSE, WHERE HALF THE VOTING
3:08
POPULATION DOESN'T BELIEVE IN
3:09
BIG CORPS WEIGHS, BIG MEDIA.
3:11
THERE'S A LACK OF TRUST.
3:13
THIS IS SUCH B.S.
3:14
I WANT TO YOU MAKE SURE YOU
3:16
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS,
3:17
BECAUSE IT'S AN ECHO YOU MIGHT
3:19
HEAR FROM SOMEONE AS A DINNER
3:22
PARTY OR BARBECUE.
3:24
THOSE PEOPLE ON YOUR SCREEN
3:25
YOU'RE SEEING NOW LIE TO YOU.
3:28
THEY UNDERMINE TRUST.
3:30
THEN REFER TO A, LA OF TRUST,
3:31
WHICH IS THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR
3:33
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND TO TELL
3:34
YOU THE OBVIOUS TONIGHT, BECAUSE
3:37
SOMETIMES I DO THAT, IT IS
3:39
ILLOGICAL TO SAY YOU CAN'T
3:41
REPORT THE TRUTH IF HALF THE POP
3:43
LAS VEGAS DISAGREES WTS TRUTH.
3:45
WE'RE BACK TO 101 HERE.
3:47
THE WHOLE ROLE OF A LEGITIMATE
3:50
NEWS ORGANIZATION IS TO REPORT
3:52
FACTS REGARDLESS OF PEOPLE'S
3:54
DISAGREEMENT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
3:55
THERE'S A COORDINATED ATTACK ON
3:56
THE FACTS.
3:57
IN THIS CASE, AN ATTACK FROM THE
3:59
OUTGOING GOVERNMENT TRYING TO
4:00
OVERTHROW THE ELECTION WHERE
4:01
PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND A COUP
4:02
WAS ATTEMPTED.
4:04
THAT'S OF COURSE WHAT MAKES ALL
4:05
THIS IMPORTANT.
4:06
THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL IN THE
4:07
NEWS BECAUSE OF THE SHEER SAKE
4:08
OF IT, NOT JUST SOME RANDOM
4:12
ISOLATED LIE FROM SOMEBODY WHO
4:14
ADMIT THESE RUN FOX NEWS TO
4:20
PROTECT -- IN THAT SAME CALL,
4:25
MARTHA MacCALLUM TALKS ABOUT THE
4:31
BACKLASH.
4:31
BRETT BEHR RAISES THE IDEA OF
4:33
REVERING THE CALL.
4:35
THE SOONER WE PULL IT, EVEN IF
4:39
IT GIVES YOUS A MAJOR EGG BACK
4:40
IN TRUMP'S COLUMN, THE BETTER WE
4:42
ARE IN MY OPINION.
4:44
DAMN, PEOPLE JUST TELLING ON
4:46
THEMSELVES.
4:47
MR. BAIER CLEARLY DIDN'T KNOW
4:49
THIS ZOOM CALL WOULD GET OUT TO
4:50
THE ENTIRE WORLD, AND THIS NEWLY
4:54
LEAKED CALL SHOWS IN HIS OWN
4:56
WORDS -- I'M NOT ADD ANYTHING
4:58
HERE -- BAIER WANTED TO PULL THE
5:02
ACCURATE REPORT.
5:02
HERE WAS MAKING THAT CALL.
5:04
>> THE FOX NEWS DECISION DESK IS
5:06
CALLING ARIZONA FOR JOE BIDEN.
5:09
THAT IS A BIG GET FOR THE BIDEN
5:13
CAMPAIGN.
5:14
FOX NEWS WENT ON TO FIRE ONE OF
5:15
THE ELECTION STAFFERS WHO WAS
5:17
INVOLVED IN MAKING THE CORRECT
5:20
ARIZONA CALL.
5:21
WE DID KNOW THAT ALREADY.
5:23
THIS LEAKED ZOOM CONVERSATION
5:25
ADDS A LOT MORE CONTEXT AT IT
5:27
SHOWS FOX IS THE KIND OF MEDIA
5:31
COMPANY WHERE GETTING A STORY
5:33
RIGHT GET YOU FIRED.
5:35
THEY DID NOT PUBLICLY REVERSE
5:38
THAT CALL.
5:39
ALL THIS COMES AS RUPERT MURDOCH
5:45
ADMITS HE KNEW TRUMP'S CALL WAS
5:47
CRAZY AND SOME ENDORSED IT ANY
5:48
WAY.
5:49
NOW, HOW DID WE GET HERE?
5:51
WHY IS THIS STILL IN THE NEWS?
5:53
WELL, FOR WEEKS THE BILLION
5:56
DOLLARS DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST
5:58
FOX HAS DRIVEN SOME REALLY ROUGH
6:00
HEADLINES BASED ON THAT CASE AS
6:02
MATERIAL.
6:03
SECRET TEXTS, EMAILS,
6:05
DEPOSITIONS GOING PUBLIC LIKE
6:06
THE MURDOCH ONE, AND THAT IS ALL
6:08
AN UNAVOIDABLE PART OF LEGAL
6:10
TRIAL DISCOVERY.
6:12
BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION FROM
6:15
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" WHERE THIS
6:16
NEW CALL RECORDING LEAK CAME
6:20
FROM.
6:21
IT'S POSSIBLE, I SUPPOSE, THAT
6:22
IT WAS A RECORDING ACCIDENTALLY
6:24
MADE BY FOX THAT WENT INTO SOME
6:26
EVIDENCE GROUPING AND GOT TURNED
6:30
OVER.
6:30
IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
6:32
WE CANNOT AT THIS HOUR RULE THAT
6:33
OUT.
6:33
BUT MOST PEOPLE ON THAT CALL
6:36
WOULD NOT WANT IT RECORDED IN
6:36
THE FIRST PLACE, COULD NOT
6:38
KNOWINGLY RECORD IT TO PUT IT IN
6:41
THE EVIDENCE PILE "THE NEW YORK
6:42
TIMES" STATES THE LEAK IN THEIR
6:44
REPORTING IS BASED ON, QUOTE, A
6:51
REVIEW OF THE RECORDING OF THE
6:53
CALL.
6:53
THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE
6:55
INSIDE FOX SECRETLY RECORDED IT
6:56
AS THAT HEAT WAS RISING, KNOWING
6:58
THAT SOME DAY THAT CALL COULD BE
7:00
USED TO DAMAGE THE PEOPLE ON IT
7:01
OR EVEN THE FOX CEO HERSELF.
7:05
IT RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT
7:06
THIS CALL WAS LEAKED BY FOX
7:09
ITSELF TO HURT PEOPLE AT THE TOP
7:11
OF FOX BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE
7:13
EVEN ABOVE THAT WORRIED ABOUT
7:14
THE HEAT RIGHT NOW.
7:16
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" JUST
7:17
DOESN'T SAY.
7:18
AND AS IS OUR PRACTICE WE TELL
7:20
YOU WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW.
7:21
WE DON'T HAVE THE SOURCING, BUT
7:24
WE HAVE CLUES.
7:24
THIS IS A TIME WHEN THE CALLS
7:26
KEEP CLOSING IN AT A COMPANY RUN
7:33
BY PEOPLE WEATHERS BY SCANDALS.
7:37
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
7:39
KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
7:40
ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW OF YOUR
7:41
GOVERNMENT.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:32 am

Forwarded message
From: Marlene Bourne [DELETE]
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 5:07 PM
Subject: Election Fraud Info
To: <sidneypowell@[DELETE]; <tfitton@[DELETE]; <lou@loudobbs[DELETE]

Dear Mrs. Powell, Mr. Fitton, and Mr. Dobbs:

I was told to email you the following pieces of information:

You're probably already aware of voting irregularities in a number of states, which have one common thread: Dominion Voting Systems.

Don't you find it curious that Nadeam Elshami, Nancy Pelosi's longtime Chief of Staff is a key executive there, and that Richard Blum, Senator Feinstein's husband, is not only a significant shareholder of that company, but in Avid Technologies as well?

As a point of reference... back in 2009, Diebold sold their election machines division. An anti-trust suit was immediately filed that conveniently ensured that, in 2010, Dominion Voting Systems would acquire the assets "in order to restore competition". With the acquisition of another large california election machine company in the same timeframe, that gave Dominion an even bigger monopoly than Diebold ever had - yet no one has ever filed an anti-trust suit against them. Friends in high places indeed.

But the monopoly isn't necessarily the issue - it's the software. A piece of code was inserted such that, once ballots were fed into the database for tabulation, up to 3% of votes for Mr. Trump would automatically switch to Mr. Biden; this was capped at 3% because it was supposedly determined that anything higher than that would raise suspicions, but that 3% would be enough to tip a tight race.

How as this done?

In conjunction with a company by the name of Scytl, which provides election night reporting (and other online election management tools). You'd think that kind of hugely important software would developed and managed by a US company (or the US government itself), but...no, it's based in Spain. Which means it's the Spanish who decide who wins our elections and who doesn't. Or do they? It's a bit of a corporate shell game (with hundreds of companies involved) and while it appears that the ultimate parent company is actually British, I find it interesting that the owner is French. Here's a project for a curious investigative journalist to dig into.

You might was to see what ties Scytl company executives (all the way up the shell company food chain) have to the SSCI. Because that is the root of everything here. The base of the pyramid, so to speak. In that respect, Daniel Jones - A Feinstein staffer - and his newly formed Penn Quarter Group, are the fulcrum.

(By the way, that magic sweet spot of 3% isn't arbitrary. That's what American Express charges merchants as a transaction fee...and also happens to be the cut that Jared Kushner gets from all donations to the GOP - which is line-itemed in the software he helped to create - with his brother, I think it was - as a transaction fee. I thought I'd throw that in there in the interest of fairness to both sides).

Anyway, there's also an issue with mail-in paper ballots. Not the absentee ballots, but the mail-in ballots arbitrarily sent to people; the ones that keep mysteriously appearing in the middle of the night. The paper used to print those does NOT have a special watermark as is being reported; instead, the paper fibers were embedded with anti-counterfeiting securing features to detect fraud...much like how the Treasury embeds security features into paper money. I'll bet it's digital DNA - nanotechnology.

Detection is easy: simply use the same marker to detect fake $100 bills. Or at least, that's ONE of the anti-counterfeit features in place. Either way, it was done by the US military. In fact, I'm told that Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney briefed Mr. Trump on this last year.

Mr. Fitton's FOIA lawsuits to gain the kind of information he does is certainly helpful, but I think everyone at this point knows that the Department of Justice will do nothing. I mean, when they're handed the complete NSA database (what was it? 600 million pages of who, what, why, when, where, and how...terabytes of information on dozens of hard drives)...I suppose it takes a while to sort through it all. Or, maybe not. Ask Mossad and Shin Bet. They have a software backdoor into every intelligence database in the US...and around the world.

Besides, as I've pointed out to the FBI myself (on an entirely different matter that is now proving to be related), technically, this is a matter in which the Pentagon - the US military - has original jurisdiction.

Along those lines, I always thought it curious how Mrs. Powell's case with General Flynn seemed more like a court martial, than a regular civilian court process.

As for Mr. Dobbs...are you award that Mr. Ailes, Mr. Murdoch, and the handful of other (non-US) owners of the major US media outlets secretly huddle most days to determine how best to portray Mr. Trump as badly as possible? The global hatred of the man has everything to do with the fact that, as a political outsider, Mr. Trump has disrupted a well-oiled global money laundering operation; one that revolves around the congress critters, lobbyists, and public relations firms. There are trillions at stake...never come between a thief and his money. The recent COVID relief bills are simply one mechanism to try to feed money they've lost out on over the past 4 years back into that system.

As an aside, I'll throw this out there just because it's so interesting...and related...SCOTUS Justice Scalia wasn't accidentally shot during a hunting trip on John Poindexter's Texas ranch. He was purposefully killed at the annual Bohemian Grove camp...a club for members of the Mega-Group, during a weeklong human hunting expedition. NEVER accept an invitation to be a guest at that camp. Ever.

That being said. Who am I? And how do I know all of this?

I spent most of my career (15+ years) as a successful technology analyst; an expert in the field of nanotechnology, which touches on everything. I was superbly accurate with my forecasts and ideas. I always thought I was just a really gifted that way, but it's turned out to be a bit more than that.

I've had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl. Most were just odd - others were clearly predictions. Over time, they became more...vivid...and more...interactive. About ten years ago, an event took place that seemed to amplify these abilities, by vastly more than an order of magnitude.

Although the most vivid "dreams" take place while dozing, they're not normal dreams; but I'm not sure the Native American term "visions" really fits, either. It's more like time-travel in a semi-conscious state; and all senses are involved. But that's not all - when I'm awake, I see what others don't see, and hear what others don't hear.

There's a movie, Thunderheart, in which the Native American sheriff explains it best to an FBI agent who is just learning to tap into his Native American heritage...he tells him to "listen to the wind". That makes sense to me.

Stranger still, I was in a car accident in 1992; and something took place that I've never been able to explain. For all intents and purposes, I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live. I breathe, I shop, I laugh, I get old, I walk the earth.

The Wind tells me I'm a ghost, but I don't believe it. Although it appears that I was shot in the back shortly after submitting a tip to the FBI two years ago...at the time, I thought I just tripped and fell during a walk and bruised my ribs...but I had a vision about a year later in which I stood in the same spot and felt my soul leave my body. It was like having a band-aid being ripped off your skin. And yet, I continue to walk the earth.

Despite that, the wind tells me that no one can harm me; it protects me and keeps me safe.

Anyway, I've gotten a little off track, and I'll be the first to admit that while the last bit is pretty wackadoodle, it's relevant...and I can tell you this about everything else above:

Time always...eventually...proves me correct.

Kindest Regards,

Mars.

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

Trump spurred ‘existential crisis’ at Fox News, lawsuit exhibits show: ‘I hate him passionately,’ Tucker Carlson wrote of Donald Trump in a text to a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021
by Sarah Ellison
Washington Post
Updated March 7, 2023 at 11:20 p.m. EST Published March 7, 2023 at 10:51 p.m. EST

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.


For years, Fox News executives and hosts cultivated a close relationship with Donald Trump. But after he lost the 2020 presidential election and turned his back on the network — inspiring many once-loyal viewers to do the same — the relationship curdled.

And the ensuing pressure caused tension, second-guessing and infighting within Fox on the scale of an “existential crisis,” as one senior executive called it, a cache of internal communications released Tuesday as part of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit indicates.

“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” prime-time host Tucker Carlson texted a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021. “I truly can’t wait.”

Carlson, who had shared private meetings with the president and defended him on-air, added in a text: “I hate him passionately. … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”


Carlson’s private thoughts are especially striking in light of a new round of criticism this week that he misrepresented exclusive security-camera footage from the U.S. Capitol through a lens of Trumpian misinformation to downplay the severity of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

Dominion Voting Systems, an election-technology company, has sued Fox, arguing that the cable-news giant gravely hurt its economic future by allowing allies of Trump to claim falsely on Fox programs that it rigged the election in favor of Joe Biden.

The materials unveiled Tuesday included a large selection of exhibits mentioned in past legal motions that have generated headlines and controversy for the network. Internal communications and sworn testimony suggest that top executives and hosts privately doubted the veracity of election fraud claims even as Fox continued to air them — which Dominion argues was motivated by fear of losing Trump-supporting viewers.

“Maybe Sean and Laura went too far,” Fox’s billionaire co-founder Rupert Murdoch emailed the company CEO, referring to prime-time stars Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who had entertained the baseless election conspiracy theories on-air.

“All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump,” Murdoch continued, “but what did he tell his viewers?”


What emerges from the emails is an organization riven by internal conflicts as they grappled with the burgeoning crisis spawned by the loss of favor from Trump — which threatened to send some of his most ardent supporters to rival cable news channels.

Fox News has defended its decision to air the claims of Trump’s attorneys by saying they were newsworthy arguments. And in a statement Tuesday, Fox representatives dismissed the significance of the newly revealed exhibits, saying that Dominion used “distortion and misinformation” and that the company “twist[ed] and even misattribut[ed] quotes” in presenting the material.

Not long after Murdoch agonized over whether his hosts had “gone too far,” one of the most high-ranking news editors, Bill Sammon, texted a colleague: “In my 22 years affiliated with Fox, this is the closest thing I’ve seen to an existential crisis — at least journalistically.” The “crisis” was the network’s continued focus on what Sammon called “supposed election fraud.”

His colleague Chris Stirewalt, then a politics editor who played a key role in Fox’s decision to call Arizona for Biden, replied: “What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff.” (Both Sammon and Stirewalt were later pushed out of their jobs at Fox.)


Ingraham and Carlson also disparaged Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, a Nov. 18, 2020, text conversation shows.

Ingraham texted Carlson that “Giuliani embarrassed the President” during court battles over the election. Ingraham, who previously worked as an attorney, scoffed that Giuliani was unable to answer a judge’s questions that “a second year law student would known.”

She went on to call another prominent member of Trump’s legal team, Sidney Powell, “a complete nut,” and stated that “no one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”

Yet even while mocking the conspiratorial claims, the prime-time hosts also expressed frustration at decisions by the network’s news division to contradict some of those claims. And they expressed special disdain for the news division’s early prediction that Biden would win the hotly contested state of Arizona — an announcement that infuriated Trump and many of his fans.

“We are all officially working for an organization that hates us,” Ingraham wrote in one text thread with Carlson and Hannity.

In another, in mid-November 2020, as they watched Fox viewers flip to more conservative upstart channels, Ingraham wrote to the group, “My anger at the news channel is pronounced.”


Yet as tensions roiled Fox, the faces of the network were not always united in their approach. When Hannity’s producer noted that Carlson was getting “blasted on Twitter” for criticizing Powell on his show, Hannity replied, “His problem.”

“Trump people are … pissed,” Hannity texted his producer, who replied that Hannity’s show succeeded because “we just didn’t talk about Sidney’s claims.”

The newly unveiled exhibits show the extraordinary energy and attention devoted to mollifying Trump and his die-hard supporters in the days after Fox correctly called the election for Biden.

In one internal message, Raj Shah, a Fox Corp. senior vice president, shared survey data with colleagues showing that Fox’s favorability ratings dropped sharply after the election. The network’s brand was “under heavy fire from our customer base,” he wrote. “I’d like to get honest/deeper feedback from Fox viewers on the brand, the handling of the election, if they feel like they have been somehow betrayed by the network.

(Shah, in a separate communication, called Powell’s election fraud claims “totally insane” and “just MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.”)

Shah warned senior leaders that Fox’s declining favorability among its core audience was “getting pretty perilous” and said he had shared his views with Lachlan Murdoch, the CEO of the news network’s parent company, as well as Viet Dinh, the company’s chief legal and policy officer. His views, he wrote in an email on Nov. 11, 2020, were that “bold, clear and decisive action is needed for us to begin to regain the trust that we’re losing with our core audience.”


One defamation expert said Dominion’s court filings were striking for what he saw as Fox’s misplaced emphasis of priorities.

“The picture so far shows deep involvement of people responsible for the editorial process who were more concerned about the opinion of certain politicians than the truth,” said David Logan, a professor at Roger Williams School of Law.

Six weeks before the 2020 election, Murdoch emailed Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to weigh in on campaign advertising.

“Know you are spending less on tv than Biden,” Murdoch wrote. “However my people tell me his [advertisements] are a lot better creatively than yours.” He signed the email “Rupert” and appeared to send it using his iPhone.

Kushner replied the next day, assuring the media mogul, “Should have some new creative out this week. I did a review and like what [I’m] seeing.”


But despite Murdoch’s intelligence gathering for Kushner, Trump lost.

Fox News has previously said that Dominion has “cherry-pick[ed]” salacious details “utterly irrelevant to the legal issues in this case.” With these latest filings, the public got a fuller view of the context to some of the blockbuster revelations that came out weeks ago in legal motions.

Defamation cases typically involve one statement or phrase by one individual or a few, not months of on-air monologues and internal exchanges between dozens of individuals.

At their most outlandish, some Fox hosts entertained claims that Dominion was a front for the government of Venezuela and that its voting machines were capable of flipping votes from one candidate to another.

After Rupert Murdoch saw a New York Post cover telling Trump to move on, the Fox Corp. chairman told the paper’s former editor in chief, Col Allan, “Sounds like Donald read this.” An hour later on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent his congratulations to Allan for a “great” editorial.


“If he doesn’t tweet it’ll mean he’s read it and stopped to think,” Murdoch wrote, another example of a fruitless desire to quiet Trump’s baseless election conspiracy claims.

Carlson, in his text exchange with a colleague, expressed his ultimate frustration with Trump’s administration. “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest,” he wrote. “But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”

Isaac Stanley-Becker, Emma Brown, Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Jonathan O’Connell contributed to this report.

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

Tucker Carlson 'passionately' hates Trump & the truth
by Lawrence O’Donnell
MSNBC
Mar 7, 2023 #msnbc #tuckercarlson #foxnews

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes the latest documents released in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox, which include Tucker Carlson telling his fellow Fox hosts in texts that the election lies being repeated on the network were making him “paranoid and crazy.”



Transcript

>> TUCKER CARLSON'S
0:08
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND THOSE
0:11
ARE HIS WORDS DESCRIBING
0:14
HIMSELF.
0:15
IN A MASSIVE NEW --
0:17
IN THE DOMINION --
0:20
FOR LYING ABOUT DOMINION'S
0:22
VOTING MACHINES IN THE LAST
0:24
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, CLAIMING
0:25
THAT THOSE MACHINES SWITCHED
0:29
VOTES AND EVERYONE AT FOX KNEW
0:30
THAT WAS A LIE, EVERYONE AT FOX
0:34
EXCEPT MARIA BARTIROMO KNEW
0:36
THAT EVERYTHING FROM FOX WAS
0:38
SPEWING ABOUT DOMINION WAS A
0:40
LIE AND EVERYONE EXCEPT MARIA
0:42
BARTIROMO NEW.
0:44
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP'S
0:45
LAWYERS SAID WHO'S LICENSED
0:47
PRACTICE LAW HAS BEEN SUSPENDED,
0:49
EVERYTHING SHE WAS SAYING ABOUT
0:51
DOMINION WAS A LIE.
0:53
TONIGHT'S RELEASE, FOX 10 PM
0:59
LAURYN GREENE TEXTS CUFF TUCKER
1:00
CARLSON SAYING, SYDNEY POWELL
1:02
IS A BIT NUTS, TO WHICH TUCKER
1:04
CARLSON SAYS SHE IS MAKING
1:06
EVERYONE A BIT PARANOID AND
1:07
CRAZY, INCLUDING ME.
1:10
THE TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS
1:12
FROM INSIDE FOX SHOW TUCKER
1:14
CARLSON MOSTLY TELLS THE TRUTH
1:17
WHEN HE THINKS HE IS
1:21
COMMUNICATING PRIVATELY IN FOX,
1:22
HE CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY
1:24
THROWS PALACE THE LOGICAL LIES
1:27
AT HIS T V AUDIENCE WHO HE
1:29
FIRMLY BELIEVES IS WAY TOO
1:32
STUPID TO FIGURE OUT THAT A
1:34
SELF PARANOID AND CRAZY FOX
1:38
HOST IS LYING TO HIM.
1:42
AS HE DID LAST NIGHT, BY
1:44
CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING
1:46
VIOLENT ABOUT --
1:47
ON JANUARY 6TH BECAUSE --
1:52
BUT VIDEO SUPPLIED FROM THE
1:55
CAPITAL, --
1:56
TUCKER CARLSON FOUND SOME
1:58
MOMENTS AS I TOLD YOU HE WOULD
2:00
WEAR NO ONE WAS BEING THE DAY
2:04
THAT JOHN LEWIS --
2:06
WAS ALMOST BEATEN TO DEATH FOR
2:08
DARING TO CROWDS --
2:12
LIKE THIS ONE.
2:14
OF THE ALABAMA STATE TROOPER
2:16
VICIOUSLY BEATING JOHN LEWIS.
2:19
BUT IF YOU HAD A CAMERA ON THAT
2:21
SAME STATE TROOPER, SAME GUY IN
2:23
THAT PHOTOGRAPH, IF YOU HAD A
2:25
CAMERA ON HIM FROM A COUPLE OF
2:26
HOURS BEFORE THAT MOMENT,
2:28
TUCKER CARLSON WOULD TELL YOU
2:30
THAT THAT WAS A PERFECTLY
2:31
PEACEFUL LAW-ABIDING POLICE
2:33
OFFICER WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING
2:35
WRONG THAT DAY.
2:36
MOST OF THE NEWS FOOTAGE OF
2:38
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S --
2:41
NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963 SHOWS A
2:43
SPIRALING PRESIDENT BEING
2:44
WELCOMED BY THE PEOPLE OF
2:46
DALLAS, --
2:47
TUCKER CARLSON COULD SHOW HIS
2:49
AUDIENCE THAT FILM OF THE
2:51
SMILING PRESIDENT WAVING TO THE
2:53
CROWD IN HIS MOTORCADE TO PROVE
2:57
TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT NOTHING
2:59
BAD HAPPENED IN DALLAS THAT DAY.
3:02
THAT IS ALL TUCKER CARLSON
3:04
THINKS HE HAS TO DO WITH HIS
3:07
AUDIENCE.
3:08
JUST DON'T SHOW THEM THE TRUE
3:11
FILM OF THE BULLETS AND DURING
3:14
THE PRESIDENTS DEBT.
3:15
BACK OF THE HEAD IN THE NECK.
3:16
DON'T SHOW THAT.
3:17
YOU CAN TELL TUCKER CARLSON'S
3:19
AUDIENCE THAT JOHN F. KENNEDY
3:21
WAS NOT ASSASSINATED IN DALLAS
3:23
THAT DAY.
3:24
AND MAY STILL BE AMONG US.
3:25
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TUCKER
3:27
CARLSON DID LAST NIGHT IN HIS
3:30
PEAK VERSION OF BEING PARANOID
3:34
AND CRAZY AND SPEWING
3:38
PATHOLOGICAL LIES AT THE VERY
3:40
SAME TIME.
3:41
KEVIN MCCARTHY PICK THE PERSON
3:46
ROOKIE NOT NAMED MURDAUGH WHO
3:47
HAS BEEN MOST PROTESTS WE
3:49
EXPOSED IN THE LEGAL FILINGS AS
3:51
BEING PARANOID AND CRAZY AND A
3:53
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
3:54
THAT IS THE PERSON WHO KEVIN
3:56
MCCARTHY PICKED TOOK, FOR
3:58
CARLSON --
4:00
HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE HE COULD'VE
4:01
PICKED TO GIVE HIM THE VIDEO
4:04
TAKEN BY CAMERAS ON THE CAPITOL
4:07
CAMPUS ON JANUARY 6TH SO THAT
4:09
TUCKER CARLSON, THE CRAZY,
4:12
PARANOID, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,
4:14
COULD PRETEND THAT NOTHING
4:15
VIOLENT HAPPENED AT THE CAPITOL
4:17
THAT DAY.
4:19
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:20
PRETEND NOBODY COMMITTED A
4:22
CRIME.
4:23
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:24
PRETEND THAT THE THOUSAND
4:26
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
4:28
AND CHARGED WITH CRIMES BY THE
4:30
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DID NOTHING
4:32
WRONG SO THAT DONALD TRUMP
4:33
COULDN'T SAY TODAY AS HE DID IN
4:35
HIS REVIEW OF TUCKER CARLSON'S
4:37
VIDEO LAST NIGHT THAT EVERYBODY,
4:42
OH THOUSAND OF THEM, CHARGED
4:43
WITH A CRIME ON JANUARY 6TH
4:45
SHOULD BE EMMY'S ELITE RELEASED
4:46
FROM CUSTODY AND PROSECUTION.
4:49
THERE IS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF
4:50
MATERIAL IN THIS LATEST FILE
4:52
INCLUDING AN EMAIL FROM REPORT
4:54
MURDAUGH --
4:56
WHO TECHNICALLY HOLDS THE
4:58
RIDICULOUS TITLE OF CEO OF FOX
5:00
BUT IS REALLY JUST A RUPERT
5:02
MURDOCH ASSISTANT.
5:04
THE EMAIL IS THE DAY AFTER JOE
5:05
BIDEN'S INAUGURATION --
5:09
BEGINS THE DAY IN A MEETING
5:10
WITH MITCH MCCONNELL AND
5:12
LINDSEY GRAHAM AND HE TELLS
5:13
SUZANNE SCOTT WHAT HE HEARD IN
5:14
THAT MEETING.
5:15
STILL GETTING MUD THROWN OUT
5:16
US.
5:17
IS IT AN ARGUABLE THAT HIGH
5:19
PROFILE FOX VOICES FED THE
5:21
STORY THAT THE ELECTION WAS
5:22
STOLEN AND THAT JANUARY 6TH, AN
5:26
IMPORTANT CHANGE, TO HAVE
5:29
RESULTS OVERTURNED?
5:30
AN IMPORTANT CHANCE TO HAVE
5:32
RESULTS OVERTURNED.
5:33
MAYBE JOHN AND LAURA WENT TOO
5:34
FAR.
5:35
ALL VERY WELL FOR SEAN TO TELL
5:37
YOU HE WAS IN DESPAIR ABOUT
5:38
TRUMP BUT WHAT DID HE TELL YOU
5:40
HIS VIEWERS?
5:41
RUPERT MURDOCH KNOWS EXACTLY
5:43
WHAT SEAN HANNITY TOLD HIS
5:46
VIEWERS, HE PAID SEAN HANNITY
5:48
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, TENS
5:50
AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
5:52
TO TELL HIS VIEWERS WHAT RUPERT
5:55
MURDOCH HAD SHOWN HIM.
5:57
YOU BELIEVE THOSE VIEWERS
5:59
WANTED TO HEAR, THAT THE
6:00
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
6:01
THAT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WOULD
6:02
BE RESTORED.
6:04
UNDER OATH RUPERT MURDOCH SAID
6:06
HE WAS AWARE OF NO EVIDENCE
6:08
WHATSOEVER, OF ANY ELECTION
6:10
FRAUD IN ANY STATE AND HE SAID
6:11
UNDER OATH THAT HE HAD NO
6:12
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE
6:14
WAS ANYTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY
6:17
WRONG WITH A SINGLE DOMINION
6:18
VOTING MACHINE ANYWHERE.
6:20
ALL OF FOXES COVERAGE ABOUT
6:22
DOMINION, ALL OF IT, WAS BASED
6:24
ON A WOMAN WHO CALLS HERSELF
6:28
WACKADOODLES.
6:30
THIS WOMAN SUPPLIED SYDNEY
6:32
POWELL WITH HER THEORY OF THE
6:34
CASE.
6:35
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP --
6:38
AND FOX WAS SAYING ABOUT
6:40
DOMINION CAME FROM SOMEONE
6:41
NAMED MARLENE BOURNE FOR IN.
6:45
A FEW HOURS AFTER ALL THE
6:48
NETWORKS, INCLUDING FOX, CALLED
6:49
THE ELECTION FOR JOE BIDEN ON
6:51
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2022.
6:55
WE HAVE THIS EMAIL THAT DAY,
6:57
BECAUSE SYDNEY POWELL ORDERED
6:59
IT.
7:00
AND TO MARIA BARTIROMO THAT --
7:04
OF COURSE THERE IS ELECTION
7:05
FRAUD.
7:06
ONLY MARIA BARTIROMO BELIEVED
7:08
THIS.
7:09
MARIA BARTIROMO IS THE ONLY
7:11
PERSON AT FOX WHO WAS NOT
7:14
TRAFFICKING IN PATHOLOGICAL
7:15
LIES, BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED THIS
7:18
EMAIL.
7:20
FROM MARLENE BOURNE.
7:21
IT WAS FORWARDED TO HER IN ITS
7:23
ENTIRETY FROM SYDNEY POWELL.
7:25
MARLENE BOURNE EXPLAINS THAT THE
7:29
DEVIL WAS IN THE SOFTWARE.
7:32
IT IS THE SOFTWARE, A PIECE OF
7:34
CODE WAS INSERTED SUCH THAT,
7:36
ONCE BALLOTS WERE FED INTO THE
7:37
DATABASE FOR CALCULATION, UP TO
7:39
3% OF VOTES FOR MR. TRUMP WOULD
7:41
AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH TO MR.
7:42
BIDEN.
7:43
THIS WAS KEPT 3% BECAUSE IT WAS
7:45
SUPPOSEDLY DETERMINED THAT
7:46
ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD
7:47
RAISE SUSPICIONS, BUT THAT 3%
7:49
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO TIP A TIGHT
7:52
RACE.
7:53
SHE SAID THAT THE SOFTWARE WAS
7:55
RIGGED TO DO THIS IN SPAIN.
8:00
IT'S THE SPANISH TO DECIDE WHO
8:01
WINS OUR ELECTIONS AND WHO
8:03
DOESN'T.
8:04
AND THEN SHE SAYS SOMETHING
8:06
ABOUT THE 3% THAT MARIA BUT
8:09
AROMA RED, BUT THEN DECIDED TO
8:13
NEVER TELL HER AUDIENCE.
8:16
MARLENE BOURNE SAID 3% QUOTE,
8:19
ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE CUT THAT
8:21
JARED KUSHNER GETS FROM ALL
8:23
DONATIONS TO THE GOP, WHICH IS
8:25
LINE ITEM IN THE SOFTWARE HE
8:26
HELPED TO CREATE, WITH HIS
8:28
BROTHER, I THINK IT WAS, AS A
8:30
TRANSACTION FEE.
8:31
I THOUGHT I THROW THAT IN THERE
8:32
IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS TO
8:34
BOTH SIDES.
8:38
OF COURSE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
8:39
THAT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT JARED
8:41
KUSHNER'S TRUE EITHER.
8:42
SHE WENT ON TO SAY, THERE'S
8:44
ALSO AN ISSUE WITH MAIL-IN
8:46
PAPER BALLOTS.
8:47
NOT THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, BUT
8:49
THE MAIL-IN BALLOTS ARBITRARILY
8:51
SENT TO PEOPLE.
8:54
THOSE ARE IDENTICAL BALLOTS.
8:58
ALL ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN HISTORY
9:02
HAVE BEEN MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:04
O ABSENTEE BALLOTS NOW ARE
9:07
MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:08
SEE SHE THEN SAID THAT THE
9:11
RUPERT MURDOCH QUOTE, AND A
9:13
HANDFUL OF OTHER NON U.S.
9:14
OWNERS OF THE MAJOR U.S. MEDIA
9:16
OUTLETS SECRETLY HAD ALMOST
9:18
DAYS TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO
9:20
PORTRAY MR. TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:22
POSSIBLE.
9:23
FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE NO
9:25
OTHER --
9:26
LIKE RUPERT MURDOCH WHO OWN ANY
9:27
OF THE BIG TV NETWORKS.
9:29
THE REASON MARIA BUTTERY MOSE
9:32
--
9:32
RUPERT MURDOCH TRIES TO PORTRAY
9:33
DONALD TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:35
POSSIBLE WAS QUOTE, AS A
9:37
POLITICAL OUTSIDER, MR. TRUMP
9:39
HAS DISRUPTED A WELL OILED
9:41
GLOBAL MONEY LAUNDERING
9:43
OPERATION.
9:45
SO, THE WOMAN, MARIA BARTIROMO
9:50
BELIEVES ABOUT DOMINION VOTING
9:52
MACHINES IS TELLING HER, IN
9:54
THAT SAME EMAIL THE THAT HER
9:57
BOSS, RUPERT MURDOCH IS ONE OF
9:59
THE MASTERMINDS IN A GLOBAL
10:01
MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION.
10:04
DID MARIA BUT ROMO BELIEVE THAT
10:06
PART OF THE EMAIL?
10:09
IT IS A VERY LONG EMAIL.
10:11
MOST OF IT IS NOT ABOUT THE
10:13
DOMINION VOTING MACHINES.
10:14
IT IS ABOUT MORE RUPERT MURDOCH
10:18
MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER
10:19
STUFF.
10:20
MOST OF IT IS EVEN MORE
10:21
PARANOID AND CRAZY THAN TUCKER
10:24
CARLSON.
10:25
MOST OF THE EMAIL IS PARANOID
10:28
AND CRAZY.
10:29
AT A LEVEL THAT EVEN MARIA
10:31
BARTIROMO SHOULD BE ABLE TO
10:33
DETECT, BUT APPARENTLY MARIA
10:36
BROTHER ROMO IS NOT INFORMED
10:38
ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATE
10:41
FACT FROM FICTION IN THE MOST
10:42
OBVIOUS WAY.
10:44
MARLENE BOURNE'S EMAIL SAYS, AS AN
10:47
ASIDE, OFFER THIS OUT THERE
10:49
JUST BECAUSE IT'S SO
10:50
INTERESTING, AND RELATED.
10:52
SCOTUS JUSTICE SCALIA WASN'T
10:53
ACCIDENTALLY SHOT DURING A
10:54
HUNTING TRIP ON JOHN
10:56
POINDEXTER'S TEXAS RANCH.
10:58
HE WAS PURPOSEFULLY KILLED AT
11:00
THE ANNUAL BOHEMIAN GROVE CAMP,
11:03
A CLUB FOR MEMBERS OF THE MEGA
11:06
GROUP, DURING WEEK LONG HUMAN
11:10
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:13
NEVER ACCEPT AN INVITATION TO
11:14
BE A GUEST AT THAT CAMP.
11:16
EVER.
11:18
A HUMAN HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:20
JUSTICE SCALIA WAS ON A HUMAN
11:23
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:24
TO HUNT AND KILL HUMAN BEINGS,
11:26
SOMEHOW HE ENDED UP AT.
11:28
BOHEMIAN GROVE IS A LARGELY
11:30
RICH REPUBLICAN BUSINESSMAN'S
11:33
RETREAT THAT HAPPENS EVERY
11:34
SUMMER IN CALIFORNIA.
11:39
JUSTICE SCALIA DIED IN HIS
11:40
SLEEP AS A HOUSEGUEST IN TEXAS.
11:46
FEBRUARY 13TH, 2016.
11:48
MARIA BARTIROMO APPARENTLY HAS
11:50
NO IDEA WHEN OR HOW JUSTICE
11:54
SCALIA DIED, BECAUSE SHE BASED
11:57
ALL OF HER COVERAGE ON THIS
12:00
EMAIL.
12:01
THE LAST THIRD OF THE EMAIL
12:05
ANSWERS THE QUESTION, MARLENE BOURNE
12:07
ASKS IN HER EMAIL WHEN SHE
12:09
SAYS, WHEN I?
12:11
AND HOW I DO I KNOW ALL OF THIS?
12:13
SHE ANSWERS, I SPENT MOST OF MY
12:15
CAREER, 15 PLUS YEARS, AS A
12:17
SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY ANALYST.
12:19
THAT IS IT.
12:20
THAT IS HER QUALIFICATION FOR
12:22
FOX TO BASE ALL OF THEIR
12:24
COVERAGE ON DOMINION ON THIS
12:28
PERSON.
12:29
AND THERE IS MORE.
12:30
SHE WROTE, I'VE HAD THE
12:32
STRANGEST DREAM SINCE I WAS A
12:34
LITTLE GIRL.
12:34
MOST WERE JUST ODD, OTHERS WERE
12:36
CLEARLY PREDICTIONS.
12:37
OVERTIME, THEY BECAME MORE
12:38
VIVID AND MORE INTERACTIVE.
12:40
ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, AN EVENT
12:41
TOOK PLACE THAT SEEM TO AMPLIFY
12:43
THESE ABILITIES, BY VASTLY MORE
12:46
THAN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
12:48
IT IS MORE LIKE TIME TRAVEL IN
12:49
SEMICONSCIOUS STATE, AND ALL
12:51
SENSES ARE INVOLVED.
12:52
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, WHEN I'M
12:54
AWAKE, I SEE WHAT OTHERS DON'T
12:55
SEE, AND HEAR WHAT OTHER STONE
12:57
HERE.
13:00
LIKE VOTING MACHINES CHANGING
13:03
VOTES.
13:04
SHE SEES THAT.
13:05
HERE'S THAT.
13:06
SHE QUOTED A MOVIE IN WHICH ONE
13:09
CHARACTER TELLS ANOTHER
13:10
CHARACTER TO LISTEN TO THE
13:11
WIND.
13:12
AND THEN SHE WROTE, THE WIND
13:12
TELLS ME I'M A GHOST, BUT I
13:14
DON'T BELIEVE IT.
13:15
ALTHOUGH, IT APPEARS THAT I WAS
13:17
SHOT IN THE BACK SHORTLY AFTER
13:20
SUBMITTING A TIP TO THE FBI TWO
13:22
YEARS AGO.
13:23
AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT I JUST
13:24
TRIPPED AND FELL DURING A WALK
13:26
AND BRUISED MY RIBS, BUT I HAD
13:28
A VISION ABOUT A YEAR LATER IN
13:30
WHICH I STOOD IN THE SAME SPOT
13:32
AND FELT MY SOUL LEAVE MY BODY.
13:35
IT WAS LIKE HAVING A BAND-AID
13:37
BEING RIPPED OFF YOUR SKIN.
13:38
AND YET, I CONTINUE TO WALK THE
13:40
EARTH.
13:41
DESPITE THAT, THE WIND TELLS ME
13:42
THAT NO ONE CAN HARM ME.
13:43
IT PROTECTS ME AND KEEPS ME
13:45
SAFE.
13:46
ANYWAY, I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE
13:46
OFF TRACK, AND BE THE FIRST TO
13:48
ADMIT THAT WHILE THE LAST BIT
13:49
IS PRETTY WACKADOO DOLE, IT'S
13:52
RELEVANT.
13:53
AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS ABOUT
13:55
EVERYTHING ELSE --
13:57
TIME ALWAYS, EVENTUALLY, PROVE
14:00
ME CORRECT.
14:02
KINDEST REGARDS, THE MARS.
14:06
THAT IS THE EMAIL.
14:08
THAT IS THE EMAIL FROM MARLENE BOURNE
14:11
ON WHICH FOX BASED OLE OF
14:16
ITS ATTACKS ON DOMINION VOTING
14:21
SYSTEMS.
14:21
TUCKER CARLSON KNEW THAT SYDNEY
14:24
POWELL, WHO WAS PUSHING THAT
14:26
EMAIL, IT WAS CRAZY.
14:29
I DID TOO.
14:31
EVERYONE GET.
14:33
I COVERED SYDNEY POWELL AS HE
14:36
PARANOID AS CRAZY PERSON,
14:38
INFLICTING HERSELF IN AMERICA
14:40
THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP,
14:42
COVERING SYDNEY POWELL DID NOT
14:44
MAKE ME PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:47
BUT SYDNEY POWELL MADE TUCKER
14:50
CARLSON PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:54
HE SAYS SHE DID.
14:55
BUT THE REASON SYDNEY POWELL
14:58
WAS ABLE TO MAKE TUCKER CARLSON
15:00
PARANOID AND CRAZY IS THAT HE
15:02
ALREADY WAS.
15:03
TUCKER CARLSON SEEDS WHICH WITH
15:07
HATRED.
15:08
HE EXHIBITS IT EVERY NIGHT,
15:10
HATRED FOR MASSES OF PEOPLE,
15:12
HATRED FOR INDIVIDUALS.
15:15
TUCKER CARLSON HATES
15:18
PASSIONATELY.
15:19
AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE HAS
15:21
TOLD US IN WRITING.
15:24
AS DOMINION REVEALS THAT ON
15:27
JANUARY 4TH, TWO DAYS BEFORE
15:29
TUCKER CARLSON WAS ABSOLUTELY
15:32
CERTAIN THAT CONGRESS WOULD
15:34
SMOOTHLY CERTIFY JOE BIDEN'S
15:36
ELECTION ON JANUARY SIX,
15:39
ALTHOUGH TUCKER CARLSON WAS
15:40
AFRAID TO TELL HIS AUDIENCE
15:42
THAT, TUCKER CARLSON TEXTS, WE
15:45
ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO BEING
15:46
ABLE TO AVOID TRUMP MOST
15:49
NIGHTS.
15:50
I HATE HIM PASSIONATELY.
15:55
THAT IS TUCKER CARLSON.
15:57
SAYING HE HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:03
PASSIONATELY.
16:04
AND THAT IS NOW THE WASHINGTON
16:06
POST HEADLINE TONIGHT ABOUT
16:08
TUCKER CARLSON, SAYING I HATE
16:10
HIM PASSIONATELY.
16:13
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.
16:15
DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN
16:16
PRETENDING TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT
16:18
HIS ONLY PROBLEM WITH FOX WAS
16:20
RUPERT MURDOCH, DONALD TRUMP
16:21
HAS BEEN IGNORING ALL OF THE
16:23
NEGATIVE MESSAGES BY THE PRIME
16:26
TIME FOX HOSTS ABOUT DONALD
16:27
TRUMP, THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
16:29
BY DOMINION.
16:30
AND SO IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT
16:33
DONALD TRUMP WILL HELP TUCKER
16:35
HIDE HIS BIGGEST SECRET EVER
16:39
FROM HIS AUDIENCE, THAT HE
16:41
HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:43
PASSIONATELY.
16:44
NO ONE IN TUCKER'S AUDIENCE IS
16:47
GOING TO KNOW THAT TUCKER
16:49
CARLSON WROTE I HATE TRUMP
16:51
PASSIONATELY.
16:52
AND DONALD TRUMP IS PROBABLY
16:53
GOING TO PROTECT TUCKER'S
16:55
SECRET.
16:56
BUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE
16:59
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND
17:02
PASSIONATE HATER AND PUFF
17:05
ALLOWED TRICKLE WIRE TUCKER
17:06
CARLSON IS THAT TUCKER CARLSON
17:08
HATES DONALD TRUMP
17:11
PASSIONATELY.
17:12
AND TUCKER CARLSON HAS PROVED
17:15
THAT
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:20 am

Tucker Carlson Said He Hates Trump "Passionately" in Bombshell Court Filing
by Seth Meyers
Mar 8, 2023

Seth takes a closer look at new bombshell text messages that reveal what Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson really say about Trump in private.

admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:20 am

Opinion Approving Stipulation to Discipline Under C.R.C.P. 242.19(c) [Jenna Lynn Ellis, Trump's Senior Attorney]
by Byron M. Large, Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Supreme Court, State of Colorado
The People of the State of Colorado vs. Jenna Lynn Ellis
Case Number: 23PDJ004
March 8, 2023

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 BROADWAY, SUITE 250
DENVER, CO 80203

Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Respondent: JENNA LYNN ELLIS, #44026

Case Number: 23PDJ004

OPINION APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISCIPLINE UNDER C.R.C.P. 242.19(c)

While serving as a senior legal advisor to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign, Jenna Lynn Ellis (“Respondent”) repeatedly made misrepresentations on national television and on Twitter, undermining the American public’s confidence in the 2020 presidential election. The parties stipulate that Respondent’s misconduct warrants public censure, and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“the Court”) approves the parties’ stipulation.

I. STIPULATED FACTS AND ARGUMENT

On February 13, 2023, Jessica E. Yates and Jacob M. Vos, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“the People”), and Michael W. Melito, counsel for Respondent, filed a “Stipulation to Discipline Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 242.19.” In the stipulation, the parties agree that Respondent should be publicly censured.

The parties stipulate to the following facts. From February 2019 to January 15, 2021, Respondent was a senior legal advisor to the then-serving President of the United States. She “was a member of President Trump’s legal team . . . that made efforts to challenge President Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential Election.”1 Though Respondent “was part of the legal team . . . she was not counsel of record for any of the lawsuits challenging the election results.”2 Respondent made ten public misrepresentations in November and December 2020 in her capacity as counsel for the then-President’s reelection campaign and as personal counsel to the then-President, while also advertising her status as a lawyer.

Respondent agrees she made the following ten misrepresentations:

• On November 13, 2020, Respondent claimed that “Hillary Clinton still has not conceded the 2016 election.”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated: “We have affidavits from witnesses, we have voter intimidation, we have the ballots that were manipulated, we have all kinds of statistics that show that this was a coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret . . .”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Spicer & Co. and stated, “with all those states [Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia] combined we know that the election was stolen from President Trump and we can prove that.”
• On November 21, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter under her handle @JennaEllisEsq., “ . . . SECOND, we will present testimonial and other evidence IN COURT to show how this election was STOLEN!”
• On November 23, 2020, Respondent appeared on The Ari Melber Show on MSNBC and stated, “The election was stolen and Trump won by a landslide.”
• On November 30, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “President Trump is right that there was widespread fraud in this election, we have at least six states that were corrupted, if not more, through their voting systems. . . We know that President Trump won in a landslide.” She also stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 3, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 5, 2020, Respondent appeared on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News and stated, "We have over 500,000 votes [in Arizona] that were cast illegally . . .”
• On December 15, 2020, Respondent appeared on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax and stated, “The proper and true victor, which is Donald Trump . . .”
• On December 22, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter, through her handle @JennaEllisEsq, “I spent an hour with @DanCaplis for an in-depth discussion about President @realDonaldTrump's fight for election integrity, the overwhelming evidence proving this was stolen, and why fact-finding and truth—not politics—matters!”

Respondent made these misrepresentations on Twitter and on various television programs, including Fox Business, MSNBC, Fox News, and Newsmax. 3 The parties agree that by making these misrepresentations, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The parties ask the Court to approve their stipulation and to publicly censure Respondent for this misconduct. In doing so, the parties rely on Standard 5.13 under the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”), 4 which provides that “[public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly5 engages in any [noncriminal] conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”

On February 15, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to set this matter for a hearing on the stipulation. The Court asked the parties to address whether ABA Standard 5.13 is the most fitting ABA Standard for Respondent’s misconduct. The Court also directed the parties to address the applicability of other ABA Standards, including ABA Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 5.11(b). At the hearing, which took place on March 1, 2023, the Court heard legal argument from both parties as to the appropriate ABA Standards and in support of their proposed sanction.6 The parties represented that they could not locate published lawyer discipline cases that present facts akin to those to which they stipulate, noting that this case is novel and one of first impression. Throughout the hearing, the parties also signaled that First Amendment considerations, including limitations on lawyers’ speech, were an important part of their analysis in reaching the terms of their negotiated settlement.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

In considering a stipulation to discipline, the Court “may either reject the stipulation and order that the disciplinary proceeding go forward . . . or approve the stipulation and enter an appropriate order.”7 The Court endeavors to accord parties broad latitude to fashion mutually agreeable resolutions, wishes to honor parties’ agreements, and is favorably inclined to accept targeted and proportionate stipulations that protect the public and promote confidence in the legal profession.

Reviewing stipulations “[u]sing discretion and in accordance with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions,”8 the Court looks to the ABA Standards as its guiding authority in imposing an appropriate sanction, unless doing so would contradict Colorado Supreme Court case law.9 The Court is also guided by the Colorado Supreme Court’s stated regulatory objectives to increase public understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and to ensure lawyers’ compliance with the rules of professional conduct and other rules in a manner that is fair, efficient, effective, targeted, and proportionate.10 This Court is thus cognizant that disciplinary decisions serve to guide and educate the members of the legal profession.11

The Court understands that this matter presents unique facts, and it is keenly aware that it does not have the benefit of factually analogous cases imposing discipline. Absent comparable prior cases, the Court’s analysis centers exclusively on the ABA Standards and interpretive Colorado Supreme Court case law, which provide a framework to assess the stipulation.

The ABA Standard 5.0 series sanctions lawyers for violations of duties owed to the public, and the ABA Standard 5.1 series specifically focuses on lawyers’ failure to maintain personal integrity. ABA Standard 5.1 appears singular in that it takes no account of the type or quantum of harm a lawyer’s misconduct causes. Under ABA Standard 5.11(b), disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. ABA Standard 5.12 provides for suspension when a lawyer’s dishonesty implicates criminal misconduct. Under a strict reading of the Standards, it is not applicable here.12 ABA Standard 5.13 provides that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.13

In contrast, ABA Standard 7.0 implicates violations of the duties lawyers owe as professionals, which generally involve “false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional misconduct.” Under ABA Standard 7.2, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

Although ABA Standard 7.2 seemingly fits the fact pattern at hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Rosen counsels against relying on that Standard outside the context of lawyers’ misrepresentations while executing their professional duties.14 Rosen further counsels against imposing a sanction in the gap left between ABA Standards 5.11(b) and 5.13. Indeed, the Rosen court addressed at length the appropriate Standards to apply when faced with instances of lawyer misrepresentation:

Unless deceit or misrepresentation is directed toward a client, see ABA Standard 4.6, a tribunal, see ABA Standard 6.1, or the legal profession itself (as, for example, by making false representations in applying for admission to the bar), see ABA Standard 7.0, it is considered by the ABA Standards to be the violation of a duty owed to the public, see ABA Standard 5.0. As the violation of a duty owed to the public (as distinguished from a client, a court, or the profession), even conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as long as it falls short of actual criminality or comparable intentional conduct seriously adversely reflecting on one's fitness to practice law, should generally be sanctioned only by reprimand, or censure.15


With these authorities in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ stipulation. Respondent and the People agree that Respondent made ten misrepresentations on Twitter and to nationally televised audiences in her capacity as personal counsel to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign. The parties agree that Respondent made these statements, which violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), with at least a reckless state of mind. The parties agree that Respondent was not counsel of record in any lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. The parties agree that Respondent, through her conduct, undermined the American public’s confidence in the presidential election, violating her duty of candor to the public. Finally, the parties agree that two aggravators apply—Respondent had a selfish motive and she engaged in a pattern of misconduct—while one factor, her lack of prior discipline, mitigates her misconduct.

Based on the parties’ agreements and Rosen’s clear directives, the Court concludes that ABA Standard 5.13 applies in this circumstance. Though the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigators, the factors are not so out of balance as to warrant departing from the presumptive sanction of public censure. Given the limited information before the Court—which includes only the four corners of the parties’ stipulation and their arguments supporting this outcome at the hearing on March 1, 2023—the Court finds the terms of the stipulation to be consistent with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions and APPROVES the parties’ stipulation in this case.

DATED THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2023.

____________________________________
BRYON M. LARGE
PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

Copies to:
Jessica E. Yates Via Email
Jacob M. Vos j.yates@csc.state.co.us
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel j.vos@csc.state.co.us

Michael W. Melito Via Email
Respondent’s Counsel melito@melitola

_______________

Notes:

1. Stip. ¶ 6(a).
2.Stip. ¶ 6(c).
3. Stip. ¶ 6(e). The Court understands that these television programs are nationally televised broadcasts.
4. Found in ABA Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed. 2019).
5. The parties stipulate that Respondent acted with a mental state that was “at least reckless.” Stip. ¶ 13(b). For disciplinary purposes, recklessness is treated as equivalent to a knowing state of mind, with a limited exception not applicable here. See Colo. RPC 1.0 cmt. 7A; People v. Small, 962 P.2d 258, 260 (Colo. 1998).
6. Yates and Vos appeared on the People’s behalf, and Melito appeared for Respondent, who did not attend the hearing.
7. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
8. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
9. See In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43, 46-47 (Colo. 2003). The ABA Standards were created to “enhance the consistency of the sanctions imposed in attorney disciplinary proceedings.” Id. at 47.
10. Preamble to Chapters 18 to 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, ¶¶ 1- 2.
11. See In Re Attorney C., 47 P.3d 1167, 1174 (Colo. 2002).
12. See In re Convisser, 242 P.3d 299, 313 (N.M. 2010) (“Under Standard 5.13, a reprimand is generally considered appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in non-criminal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.”); In re Schaeffer, 45 A.3d 149, at *9 (Del. 2012) (“The main distinction between Standard 5.12 and Standard 5.13 appears to be the seriousness of the conduct, with Standard 5.12 focused on ’criminal conduct’ that ’seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice’ and Standard 5.13 focused on ’other [presumably non-criminal] conduct.’”) (alteration in original).
13. Significant gaps exist between ABA Standards 5.13 and 5.11(b). Those gaps include the distinction in the mental state—intentional versus knowing—and whether the lawyer’s conduct “adversely reflects” or “seriously adversely reflects” on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Moreover, suspension under ABA Standard 5.1 is limited to certain criminal conduct, leaving the binary option of disbarment or public censure as the only available sanctions for noncriminal conduct under this ABA Standard. Courts have repeatedly struggled with this aspect of ABA Standard 5.1’s design. See People v. Steinman, 452 P.3d 240, 250 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2019) (imposing suspension under ABA Standard 7.2 after a prosecutor made misrepresentations to his supervisors and to another lawyer regarding his work on a civil matter, finding that an analysis under ABA Standard 5.1 “suggests that the presumptive sanction should occupy a middle ground between disbarment and public censure” because the conduct, though intentional, did not seriously adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); see also In re Graeff, 485 P.3d 258, 265 (Or. 2021) (recognizing that analysis under Standard 5.1 is “not a perfect fit”); In re Flannery, 47 P.3d 891, 895 (Or. 2002) (same); In re Complaint as to Conduct of Carpenter, 95 P.3d 203, 211 (Or. 2004) (same); In re Discipline of Walton, 287 P.3d 1098, 1103 (same).
14. 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008).
15. Id. at 120 (emphasis added).

****************************
Top Trump Lawyer [Jenna Ellis] Throws him UNDER THE BUS to Judge
by Ben Meiselas, MeidasTouch
Mar 9, 2023

Donald Trump’s Senior Election Lawyer Jenna Ellis has signed a formal court document with a Colorado judge admitting to lying about 2020 election fraud. MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports.



Transcript

0:00
I'm Ben micellis from the Midas touch
0:02
Network one of Donald Trump's top
0:04
lawyers back in 2022 who was spreading
0:08
the big lie one of the leaders of his
0:10
legal team Jenna Ellis has now been
0:13
publicly censured by the disciplinary
0:17
authorities overseeing the practice of
0:20
law in the state of Colorado and as part
0:23
of a stipulation Jenna Ellis has
0:26
admitted that she repeatedly lied and
0:29
misrepresented facts regarding the 2020
0:32
election she admits that all of the
0:35
things that she was saying about Donald
0:37
Trump and about the big lie were indeed
0:41
big lies and as part of an opinion
0:44
accepting the censure agreement between
0:47
Jenna Ellis and the State Bar
0:50
disciplinary group in the state of
0:53
Colorado the judge the presiding judge
0:56
of the disciplinary courts there judge
0:59
Brian a m large
1:02
explained that the statements made by
1:04
Jenna Ellis were done quote with at
1:07
least a reckless state of mind and Ellis
1:10
agreed that she quote through her
1:12
conduct undermined the American public's
1:16
confidence in the presidential election
1:18
violating her duty of Candor to the
1:22
public and the judge wrote that it was
1:26
motivated by quote a selfish motive and
1:29
part of a quote pattern of misconduct
1:32
engaged in by Jenna Ellis here let's
1:34
just pull up the document right now so
1:37
you can see that the lies are being
1:41
admitted to by Jenna Ellis let's just
1:43
pull up that page first it says
1:45
respondent Jenna Ellis agrees that she
1:48
made the following 10 misrepresentations
1:51
I'm going to read each of those 10
1:53
misrepresentations that she stipulated
1:55
to making in a moment but first let me
1:59
just show you what this document is
2:01
this is an opinion approving stipulation
2:05
for discipline or to discipline under
2:07
crcp 242 a 19c just a Colorado State Bar
2:14
Code that talks about stipulations for
2:17
uh public censure
2:20
um and this is what it states this is
2:22
the stipulation so Jenna Ellis Trump's
2:24
lawyer is admitting to everything that I
2:27
am about to say while serving as a
2:30
senior legal advisor to the then
2:32
president of the United States and as
2:34
counsel for his re-election campaign
2:37
Jenna Lynn Ellis respondent repeatedly
2:40
made misrepresentations a national
2:42
television and on Twitter undermining
2:45
the American public's confidence in the
2:47
2020 presidential election the party
2:50
stipulate that Jenna Ellis respondents
2:53
misconduct warrants public censure and
2:56
the presiding disciplinary judge of the
2:58
Court approves the party's stipulation
3:01
stipulated facts and argument on
3:04
February 13 2023 Jessica e Yates and
3:08
Jacob M Voss Office of the Attorney of
3:11
Regulation Council the people and
3:13
Michael W molito counsel for Jenna Ellis
3:16
respondent filed a stipulation to
3:19
discipline pursuant to crcp
3:21
24219 in the stipulation the parties
3:25
agree that respondents should be
3:27
publicly censured that Jenna Ellis
3:30
should be publicly censored the parties
3:33
stipulate to the following facts from
3:36
February 2019 to January 15 2021
3:40
respondent was a senior legal adviser to
3:43
the then serving president of the United
3:45
States she quote was a member of
3:47
President Trump's legal team that made
3:50
efforts to challenge President Biden's
3:52
victory in the 2020 presidential
3:54
elections though respondent quote was
3:57
part of the legal team she was not
3:59
Council of record for any of the
4:01
lawsuits challenging the election
4:02
results respondents made 10 public
4:05
misrepresentations in November and
4:08
December 2020 and her capacity as
4:11
counsel for the then president's
4:13
re-election campaign and has personal
4:15
counsel to the then president while also
4:17
advertising her status as a lawyer
4:21
respondent agrees that she made the
4:24
following 10 misrepresentations so here
4:27
we go on November 13 2020 respond and
4:31
claim that quote Hillary Clinton still
4:33
has not conceded the 2016 election that
4:37
was false on November 20 2022 respondent
4:41
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
4:44
Business and stated quote we have
4:46
affidavits from Witnesses we have voter
4:49
intimidation we have the ballots that
4:51
were manipulated we have all kinds of
4:53
Statistics that show that this was a
4:56
coordinated effort in all of these
4:58
states to transfer votes either from
5:00
Trump to Biden to manipulate the ballots
5:03
to count them in secret this was false
5:05
on November 20th 2020 respondent
5:08
appeared on spicerenko and stated quote
5:11
with all those states in the Mata
5:13
Michigan Pennsylvania Wisconsin Georgia
5:15
combined we know that the election was
5:18
stolen from president Trump and we can
5:20
prove that when she made that statement
5:22
that was false on November 21 2020
5:25
respondents stated on Twitter under our
5:27
handle at Jenna Ellis Esquire quote
5:30
second we will present testimonial and
5:33
other evidence in court to show how this
5:35
election was stolen exclamation point
5:38
this statement by Jenna Ellis was false
5:40
on November 23 2020 respondent appeared
5:44
on the Ari melber show at MSNBC and
5:46
stated quote
5:48
the election was stolen and Trump won by
5:51
a landslide Jenna Ellis admits that this
5:53
statement was false on November 30th
5:56
2020 Jenna Ellis appeared on mornings
5:59
with Maria on Fox Business and stated
6:01
quote president Trump is right that
6:04
there was widespread fraud in this
6:05
election we have at least six states
6:08
that were corrupted if not more through
6:10
their voting systems we know that
6:12
President Trump won in a landslide she
6:15
also stated quote the outcome of this
6:17
election is actually fraudulent it's
6:20
wrong and we understand that when we
6:21
subtract all the illegal ballots you can
6:24
see that the president Trump actually
6:25
won in a landslide Jenna Ellis admits
6:28
that this statement that she made was
6:30
false on December 3rd 2020 Jenna Ellis
6:34
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
6:36
Business and stated to quote the outcome
6:38
of this election is actually fraudulent
6:40
it's wrong and we understand that when
6:42
we subtract all the illegal ballots you
6:44
can see that President Trump actually
6:46
won in a landslide the this statement
6:48
Jenna Ellis now admits was false on
6:51
December 5th 2020 respondent appeared
6:53
unjustice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News
6:55
and stated quote we have over 500 000
6:59
votes in Arizona that were cast
7:02
illegally this statement Jenna Ellis now
7:05
admits was false on December 15 2020 Jen
7:08
Ellis appeared on Greg Kelly reports on
7:10
Newsmax and stated quote the proper and
7:13
true Victor which is Donald Trump that
7:16
statement Jenna Ellis now admits was
7:18
false on December 22nd 2020 respondents
7:22
dated on Twitter through her handle at
7:24
Jenna Ellis Esquire quote I spent an
7:27
hour with at Dan caplis for an in-depth
7:29
discussion about at realdonaldtrump at
7:32
president Trump fight for re-election
7:34
Integrity the overwhelming evidence
7:36
proving this was stolen and why the
7:38
fact-finding truth not politics matters
7:41
Jenna Ellis now admits when she made
7:43
this statement it was false respondent
7:46
made these misrepresentations on Twitter
7:48
and on various television programs
7:50
including Fox Business MSNBC Fox News
7:54
and Newsmax the parties agree that by
7:57
making the these misrepresentations
7:59
respondent violated the car the Colorado
8:02
bar rule 8.4 C which provides that it is
8:06
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
8:09
engage in conduct involving dishonesty
8:12
fraud deceit or misrepresentation thus
8:16
Jenna Ellis is admitting to engaging in
8:19
the conduct of dishonesty fraud deceit
8:22
or misrepresentation the parties ask the
8:26
court to approve their stipulation and
8:29
to publicly censure respondent for this
8:31
misconduct in doing so the parties rely
8:34
on standard 5.13 under the American Bar
8:37
Association standards for imposing
8:40
lawyer sanctions the ABA standards which
8:43
provides that public censure is
8:45
generally appropriate when a lawyer
8:47
knowingly engages in any non-criminal
8:49
conduct that involves dishonesty fraud
8:52
deceit or misrepresentation and that
8:55
adversely adversely reflects on the
8:58
lawyer's Fitness to practice law so as
9:01
we've said before Maga what does it
9:04
stand for make attorneys get attorneys
9:08
and here is yet another example with
9:11
Jenna Ellis and just to remind you when
9:14
Jenna Ellis was making a lot of these
9:16
false statements she was making them
9:18
beside Rudy Giuliani of course you'll
9:20
recall this video where Rudy Giuliani
9:24
farted on Jenna Ellis and then Jenna
9:27
Ellis shortly thereafter contracted
9:30
covid play this clip a single witness
9:34
just like you they don't want to know
9:36
the truth so ultimately the question for
9:40
Jenna Ellis is is was this worth it what
9:43
was it worth it at the end of the day my
9:47
own view though
9:48
is that this public censure does not go
9:51
far enough if you want to know why I
9:54
think there was a public censure as
9:57
opposed to revoking her bar license I
10:00
think I have a good understanding why I
10:04
think her bar license should have been
10:06
revoked
10:07
um she's such even though she was a
10:10
senior Counsel on Trump's legal team
10:13
she's so not a serious individual like
10:17
professionally she's such an awful
10:20
lawyer and you'll recall when I was
10:22
reading you the stipulation the key line
10:24
about why I think it was a censure
10:26
versus revoking her license is that she
10:30
never actually appeared in any
10:32
courtrooms on behalf of Donald Trump she
10:35
just went around and spread these lies
10:38
frequently and and media appearances and
10:42
like fake hearings that they would hold
10:44
in like the lobbies or conference rooms
10:46
at hotels
10:48
and because she wasn't in the cases
10:51
themselves that's why I think they
10:53
ultimately gave her a public censure
10:55
instead of a uh revoking her bar license
11:00
but I think they should have still
11:02
revoked her bar license here but what
11:04
the public censure means is basically
11:07
the judge releases to the public the
11:10
stipulation
11:12
letting the public know that her Fitness
11:15
to practice law that her moral character
11:18
to practice law is clearly impaired
11:22
that's what a public censure is it is a
11:24
judge telling the public that she's a
11:27
liar
11:28
and her admitting to the public that she
11:31
is a liar that's what a public censure
11:34
is as opposed to anything like a
11:37
suspension of her license or revoking
11:40
her license from all of the reporting
11:42
I've read and statements from her
11:44
lawyers and the bar lawyers it doesn't
11:46
look like the state of Colorado is going
11:48
to take any further
11:49
disciplinary action here which I think
11:53
is uh unfortunate however I think that
11:57
this evidence will undoubtedly be used
12:00
in many other cases including criminal
12:04
cases against Donald Trump criminal
12:07
investigations of Donald Trump and
12:09
others in Trump's Inner Circle where you
12:12
have the senior legal advisor to Donald
12:15
Trump admitting that she was knowingly
12:18
and recklessly lying to the public on
12:22
behalf of Donald Trump I think this
12:24
document will provide a lot of help with
12:28
those criminal investigations so there
12:31
is a benefit to having the stipulation
12:33
be entered into I'm Ben Marcellus from
12:36
the Midas touch Network hit subscribe
12:39
we're on our way to 1 million
12:40
subscribers thanks to your support so
12:42
please hit subscribe right now
12:45
also check us out if you can at
12:47
patreon.com Midas Touch
12:50
p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com Midas Touch
12:53
got a lot of great content on our
12:55
patreon site but most importantly it
12:58
helps grow this Independent Media
12:59
platform so check us out there until
13:02
next time I'm Ben Marcellus again hit
13:04
subscribe help us march to 1 million
13:07
subscribers in the month of March our
13:09
blue wall stop the Red Wave and election
13:11
deniers got denied election that's why
13:14
we're celebrating with the new democracy
13:16
prevails team we've got lots of work to
13:18
do but we should all be proud that when
13:20
democracy was tested democracy prevailed
13:23
you've earned this don't wait get yours
13:25
right now at store.mydisttouch.com
13:27
that's store.mydisttouch.com
13:30
[Music]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:46 am

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

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



Transcript

0:00
says Michael popock legal if well we
0:02
already have a ruling by the DC
0:04
appellate three-judge panel against
0:07
Donald Trump against his uh lawyer Evan
0:11
Corcoran the lead lawyer in everything
0:13
related to Mar-A-Lago and the documents
0:16
National Security documents that were
0:18
improperly retained and that criminal
0:20
investigation by Jack Smith you might be
0:22
thinking didn't I just hear earlier
0:24
today on another hot take bite from
0:26
popock and legal AF that they just fully
0:28
briefed it over an eight-hour period by
0:31
order of the Appellate Court and it only
0:33
all got briefed just by 6 a.m how could
0:37
we possibly be talking about a ruling
0:38
just eight hours later we're done ladies
0:40
and gentlemen we are completely done
0:42
this is a 14-hour process by the
0:45
Appellate Court three judge panel and
0:47
they have ruled against Donald Trump
0:48
they have ruled to support the trial
0:51
judge the then chief judge of the D.C
0:53
Circuit Court Beryl Howell who at the
0:56
time until she left the position and
0:59
became just a regular regular old trial
1:00
judge she was responsible for all of the
1:03
grand juries in the District of Columbia
1:05
that including the ones Jack Smith is
1:08
Prosecuting in front of related to
1:11
Donald Trump
1:12
Evan Corcoran who had
1:16
um all of the decision making related to
1:19
the Mar-A-Lago documents from the
1:20
beginning from the initial interaction
1:23
between Donald Trump and the National
1:25
Archives the pretty please return all
1:27
the documents all the way to the
1:29
subpoena that the Department of Justice
1:31
had an issue because they were getting
1:33
foot dragging from Donald Trump and
1:35
getting nonsense and and fraudulent and
1:38
false statements being made to them even
1:40
by lawyers and then the search warrant
1:42
in June all of that Evan Corcoran
1:44
touched all of that fingerprints are on
1:46
all of that and he's Christina Bob's
1:48
boss for the purposes of interacting
1:50
with the Department of Justice
1:51
Department of Justice filed evidence
1:54
with Barrel Howell on Friday to convince
1:57
her based on the evidence that they had
1:59
that they at least had a prima fascia
2:03
um uh amount of evidence present to
2:06
establish that Donald Trump committed a
2:09
crime related to the Mar-A-Lago
2:10
documents and that he willingly or
2:13
unwittingly had his lawyers involved in
2:17
that process in other words he used the
2:20
lawyers to perpetrate the crime the The
2:23
Waiting or unwitting part is whether the
2:25
lawyers knew it doesn't matter under the
2:27
crime fraud exception of the
2:29
attorney-client privilege which we've
2:31
talked a lot about and in piercing the
2:33
attorney-client privilege it doesn't
2:34
matter whether the lawyer participated
2:37
willingly in that conspiracy or was
2:39
duped by his own client it just matters
2:42
whether there was a fraud or a crime
2:44
committed in the obtaining of the legal
2:47
advice in the communications and Barrel
2:49
Howell on Friday ruled that there was
2:51
Trump and Corcoran move for an appeal
2:54
and to stay the order and while the
2:57
Appellate Court gave them the briefest
2:59
of stays really just from Saturday until
3:02
Wednesday that's it they said we're
3:06
going to brief this really really
3:07
quickly we're going to make this
3:08
decision really quickly why why you
3:10
might be wondering are they moving so
3:12
quickly I'll give you one reason it may
3:14
be because Jack Smith is on a fast track
3:18
to making a charging decision an
3:21
indictment of Donald Trump related to
3:23
Mar-A-Lago of all of the moving parts of
3:25
all the grand juries in Washington we've
3:28
always thought on our podcast legal AF
3:30
that the one that Jack Smith was closest
3:33
to the simplest case was Mar alago and
3:36
the fact that the Appellate Court moved
3:38
so quickly off of the ruling on Friday
3:40
by judge Beryl Howell indicates to me
3:43
that that the Department of Justice has
3:45
let it be known that they're at the very
3:47
end they're on the if they're not on the
3:49
one-yard line of making the charging
3:51
decision
3:52
which of course is a recommendation by
3:55
the special counsel to Merrick Garland
3:57
Merrick Garland can override it I don't
4:00
think he will here and then it's the
4:02
indict it it goes it's getting the
4:04
indictment
4:05
um from return from the grand jury
4:08
they're moving awful quick here about
4:11
top secret documents could be National
4:13
Security rationale for that more likely
4:16
department of justice has got an itchy
4:18
trigger finger and they want to indict
4:20
indict indict they need Evan Corcoran to
4:22
go back in without attorney-client
4:24
privilege and do it so we've got a
4:26
ruling today we've got a ruling just
4:28
hours after the full briefing by Donald
4:31
Trump's lawyers and team and the
4:33
Department of Justice working throughout
4:35
the night and early morning to
4:36
accommodate this trial deadline set by
4:39
the three-judge panel and the
4:40
three-judge panel took another seven
4:42
hours and reviewed everything and did
4:44
the following one they said we're
4:46
getting rid of the stay that
4:48
administrative stay we put in place just
4:50
to hold the ring while we looked at the
4:52
issue that's going on Barrel Howell's
4:54
decision ordering Evan Corcoran to
4:56
testify about what we think is six
4:58
topics in and around the subpoena and
5:01
search warrant uh that finding that
5:03
Beryl Howell made about the crime fraud
5:06
exception applies we support it we are
5:10
going to uphold her decision to compel
5:13
Evan Corcoran to go back to the grand
5:15
jury could be as early as tomorrow to
5:18
give further testimony without the
5:20
benefit of protection of the
5:21
attorney-client privilege and by the way
5:23
for good measure the court has also
5:26
ruled because we can tell from the uh
5:28
the docket entry by the clerk on the on
5:32
the long written electronic docket for
5:34
every case that exists in Federal and
5:36
State Court we can tell from the clerk's
5:38
entry that the other component of the
5:41
order compels Evan Corcoran to turn over
5:45
his attorney notes on these issues and
5:48
even some phone call transcripts that
5:50
apparently Evan Corcoran has for phone
5:53
calls that he he I mean there's nothing
5:55
like not trusting your client you you
5:57
record phone calls and then you create
5:58
transcripts of those phone calls I mean
6:01
it's insane but he has them and now he's
6:03
been ordered by the Appellate Court in
6:05
the D.C circuit the three-judge panel to
6:07
turn those over to the Department of
6:09
Justice so he's got nowhere to hide
6:11
there's no more fig leaf for Donald
6:12
Trump or Evan Corcoran they got to go
6:15
into the belly the belly of the Beast
6:17
and now testify before the grand jury
6:19
without any insulation of the
6:21
attorney-client privilege so says the
6:23
three-judge panel a very interesting
6:25
three-judge panel not only three
6:27
Democratic appointed judges two of them
6:30
by Biden one of them Michelle Childs was
6:33
on the shortest of short lists to be a
6:36
U.S Supreme Court Justice in the seat
6:38
now occupied by katanji Brown Jackson if
6:41
you recall she was the one from South
6:43
Carolina that that Lindsey Graham was
6:45
pushing hard for Joe Biden to pick well
6:47
Joe Biden picked her but picked her for
6:49
this position where she's on the DC
6:51
Circuit Court of Appeals the highest
6:53
court just below the Supreme Court in
6:55
the hierarchy of all of the federal
6:57
courts that's where we are eight out you
7:00
know eight hours nine hours of briefing
7:02
nine hours of consideration by the three
7:04
judge panel so what happens next
7:06
everybody might be thinking we can't
7:07
wait for the next hot take Pope tell us
7:09
what happens next there's two two uh
7:12
different streams you know the road
7:14
divides as follows one Donald Trump can
7:17
ask for what's called an unbank review
7:20
by the entirety of every judge on the
7:23
D.C circuit that DC circuit bench which
7:26
is about 20 or so judges that skews
7:29
Democrat
7:31
I'm not sure he's going to win with an
7:33
on Bank review of what these three
7:35
judges did knowing these three judges
7:37
voted in UNIF in unanimity
7:41
um uh and completely 3-0 against Donald
7:45
Trump
7:46
um I think that's not going to work for
7:48
him at the on Bank level so he can skip
7:50
that take that order and ask for an
7:53
emergency review by the U.S Supreme
7:55
Court
7:57
but he's got to go through one judge in
7:59
particular who is basically the Circuit
8:01
Judge or the duty judge over the D.C
8:03
circuit and that is the chief judge of
8:06
the United States John Roberts
8:09
John Roberts is going to have to if he's
8:11
asked buying a buying a quick
8:13
application which is as hard as Trump is
8:16
fighting tooth and nail to avoid Evan
8:18
corcoran's phone transcripts and and uh
8:22
notes to to go to the Department of
8:24
Justice to stop that from happening you
8:26
can be assured he's going to try to go
8:28
for a John Roberts special and get a um
8:31
uh a special fast Shadow docket review
8:35
now John Roberts has two choices he can
8:38
review the papers and make a decision on
8:40
his own he's empowered to do that on an
8:42
emergency appellate basis but he can ask
8:45
for a briefing to him he can put another
8:48
stay in place for a short amount of time
8:50
stop Evan Corcoran from testifying and
8:53
turning over those notes and ringing
8:55
that Bell which can't be unrung until
8:57
John Roberts has an opportunity on a
9:00
fast track to look at the papers sort of
9:02
like with the three judges just did at
9:04
the DC Circuit Court he might give him
9:06
another week to brief everything and
9:08
hold the ring until until then or he can
9:11
decide to turn it over to the full
9:13
Supreme Court and let all nine justices
9:16
decide this issue so here is my
9:19
prediction Donald Trump skips the on
9:22
Bonk review doesn't ask for the full D.C
9:24
circuit to do it he does a fast track
9:26
you know Saturday night special to to
9:29
John Roberts he tries to convince John
9:31
Roberts alone to make the decision to
9:33
first grant a stay allow for full
9:36
briefing and make the decision himself
9:38
and not turn it over to the full panel
9:40
here's what I think happens Trump does
9:42
that John Roberts issues an order of
9:45
another administrative state for another
9:47
short amount of time maybe a week ask
9:50
for full briefing on a fast track
9:52
between Donald Trump's lawyers and the
9:54
Department of Justice just like they
9:56
just got through doing you know go take
9:58
a nap Department of Justice I know you
10:00
just finished your brief at 6am
10:02
or a little bit before because you're
10:04
going to be briefing again to the
10:05
Supreme Court I think starting maybe
10:07
even as early as tomorrow or later in
10:09
the week and then John Roberts is going
10:11
to decide given how important this
10:13
decision is and who the target is in
10:16
Donald Trump whether he's going to make
10:17
this decision himself rejecting or
10:20
granting
10:22
um the decision of the three judge panel
10:24
or he's going to kick it back to the
10:26
full panel the full nine of the Supreme
10:28
Court I think he kicks it back to the
10:30
full nine of the Supreme Court and then
10:32
we got to do the numbers we gotta you
10:33
know how high can you count and how many
10:36
people will support Donald Trump in this
10:38
now look up until now for those that are
10:41
just joining
10:42
generally this Supreme Court even though
10:45
right right wing and Maga has sided with
10:49
the Department of Justice and against
10:50
Donald Trump on issues related to
10:53
presidential papers
10:55
uh testimony at the Grand Jury level and
10:58
even a little bit of the attorney-client
11:00
relationship and privilege and
11:02
communication privilege those have
11:03
generally gone against Donald Trump even
11:06
though he hand-picked many of these
11:07
people on the Supreme Court but we're
11:09
going to have to see with this sort of
11:11
lawyers being asked to be Witnesses
11:13
compelled to be Witnesses with the
11:15
attorney-client privilege being stripped
11:17
away from them with attorney notes being
11:19
turned over this is Big Stake stuff now
11:22
this is high ticket stuff I think it
11:25
goes to the full U.S Supreme Court
11:26
eventually and I think they make a
11:29
ruling ultimately maybe five to four but
11:31
ultimately in favor of the Department of
11:33
Justice but we'll follow it just like
11:35
we're following all of these fast-moving
11:38
locomotives of stories around the
11:41
various jurisdictions criminally and
11:43
civilly on Donald Trump not just
11:46
District of Columbia Georgia with fawnee
11:49
Willis New York with Leticia James on
11:51
the Civil side Alvin Bragg on the
11:53
criminal side
11:54
and all the civil cases including the
11:57
Civil rape case which is now scheduled
11:58
to go to trial in New York against
12:00
Donald Trump on the 25th of April we
12:02
follow it all I do a hot take like this
12:05
I used to say about every day I'm doing
12:07
them about every hour now given how fast
12:10
this wheels of Justice are moving and
12:13
then to kind of bring it all together
12:14
every Wednesday and Saturday I co-anchor
12:18
a podcast called Legal AF which is the
12:21
leading political and legal podcast out
12:24
there we're doing it on YouTube we're
12:26
doing it on every place you can pull
12:27
your podcast and I we have co-anchors
12:29
Ben mysalis co-founder of Midas Touch
12:32
and a criminal defense lawyer at his own
12:34
right and a plaintiff's lawyer and Karen
12:36
Friedman agnifolo formerly the number
12:38
two prosecutor of the Manhattan DA's
12:41
office and she's got some very
12:42
insightful things to say about all
12:44
things Trump prosecution if you like
12:46
what I'm doing you can follow me on all
12:49
social media including Twitter at Ms
12:51
popoc this is Michael popock legal AF
1
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:39 am

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



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

Transcript

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

[JORDAN KLEPPER] So we all know Trump
doesn't understand how the law Works.
Turns out he doesn't know when it works
4:01
either but for Maga supporters feeling
4:03
fomo about missing the Donald Showdown
4:05
with Justice I'm confident you'll get
4:07
another chance how long are you gonna be
4:09
here today
4:10
I don't know maybe a couple more hours
4:12
walk around and grab something to eat if
4:14
Trump is indicted in Georgia next you
4:17
going there
4:18
I don't know maybe I will it's like a
4:20
big old indictment tour right let's see
4:22
in Georgia maybe we'll swing by DC
4:25
[Music]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:13 am

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

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

ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

LESLIE B. DUBECK
GENERAL COUNSEL

March 23, 2023

By email

The Honorable Jim Jordan
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Bryan Steil
Chairman, House Committee on House Administration

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

Dear Chairman Jordan, Chairman Steil, and Chairman Comer:

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

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

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

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

Compliance with the Letter Would Interfere with Law Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Congressional Review of a Pending Criminal Investigation Usurps Executive Powers

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

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


Federal Funding is an Insufficient Basis to Justify These Unconstitutional Requests

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

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

* * *

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

Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie B. Dubeck
General Counsel

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

6 Id. at 3.

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

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

9 Consistent with this general understanding, this type of inquiry appears to be unprecedented. The only precedent is one aimed at an ongoing state civil investigation that was never enforced. See Lemos, et al. Letter to House Committee on Science & Technology (Sept. 13, 2016) (scholarly review of subpoenas from the House Committee on Science & Technology to state Attorneys General regarding pending civil investigations, and stating: "To our knowledge, Congress has never before attempted to use its investigatory authority to interfere with an ongoing state investigation."), available at page 814 of https://doc.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160914/105259/ HHRG-114-SY00-20160914-SD004.pdf.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:38 am

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

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

March 22, 2023

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

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member
_______________

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Id.

9 Pomerantz Letter, supra note 2.

10 Id.

11 Id.

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

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

14 Berman et al., supra note 4.

15 Id.

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

17 Berman et al., supra note 4.

18 Id.

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

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

21 Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. X (2023).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:18 am

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

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

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

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

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


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

ABC News first reported the ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire

™ & © 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:49 am

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

admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests