Alberto Gonzales Lectures Jack Goldsmith about Perception versus Reality in a Democracy

/120 Comments/in , , , , /by

I never, never imagined I’d see the day when Alberto Gonzales would school Jack Goldsmith on how to defend democracy.

Once upon a time, remember, it fell to Goldsmith to school Gonzales that the President (or Vice President) could not simply unilaterally authorize torture and surveillance programs that violate the law by engaging in cynical word games.

But now, Goldsmith is the one befuddled by word games and Gonzales is the one reminding that rule of law must operate in the realm of truth, not propaganda.

In a widely circulated NYT op-ed last week, Goldmith warned that democracy may suffer from the January 6 indictment of Donald Trump because of the perceived unfairness (Goldsmith doesn’t say, perceived by whom) of the treatment of Trump.

This deeply unfortunate timing looks political and has potent political implications even if it is not driven by partisan motivations. And it is the Biden administration’s responsibility, as its Justice Department reportedly delayed the investigation of Mr. Trump for a year [1] and then rushed to indict him well into the G.O.P. primary season. The unseemliness of the prosecution will most likely grow if the Biden campaign or its proxies use it as a weapon against Mr. Trump if he is nominated.

This is all happening against the backdrop of perceived unfairness in the Justice Department’s earlier investigation, originating in the Obama administration, of Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia in the 2016 general election. Anti-Trump texts by the lead F.B.I. investigator [2], a former F.B.I. director who put Mr. Trump in a bad light through improper disclosure of F.B.I. documents and information [3], transgressions by F.B.I. and Justice Department officials in securing permission to surveil a Trump associate [4] and more were condemned by the Justice Department’s inspector general even as he found no direct evidence of political bias in the investigation. The discredited Steele dossier, which played a consequential role in the Russia investigation and especially its public narrative, grew out of opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. [5]

And then there is the perceived unfairness in the department’s treatment of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, in which the department has once again violated the cardinal principle of avoiding any appearance of untoward behavior in a politically sensitive investigation. Credible whistle-blowers have alleged wrongdoing and bias in the investigation [6], though the Trump-appointed prosecutor denies it. And the department’s plea arrangement with Hunter Biden came apart, in ways that fanned suspicions of a sweetheart deal, in response to a few simple questions by a federal judge [7]. [my emphasis; numbers added]

Rather than parroting perceptions, in his op-ed, Gonzales corrects a core misperception by pointing out a key difference between Hillary’s treatment and Trump’s: Hillary cooperated.

I recently heard from friends and former colleagues whom I trust and admire, people of common sense and strong values, who say that our justice system appears to be stacked against Trump and Republicans in general, that it favors liberals and Democrats, and that it serves the interests of the Democratic Party and not the Constitution. For example, they cite the department’s 2018 decision not to charge Hillary Clinton criminally for keeping classified documents on a private email server while she was secretary of state during the Obama administration.

I can understand the skepticism, but based on the known facts in each case, I do not share it.

[snip]

A prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence affects decisions on whether to charge on a set of known facts, and government officials under investigation, such as Clinton, often cooperate with prosecutors to address potential wrongdoing. By all accounts, Trump has refused to cooperate.

By contrast, Goldsmith simply ignores the backstory to virtually every single perceived claim in his op-ed.

  1. Aside from a slew of other problems with the linked Carol Leonnig article, her claims of delay in the investigation do not account for the overt investigative steps taken against three of Trump’s co-conspirators in 2021, and nine months of any delay came from Trump’s own frivolous Executive Privilege claims
  2. Trump’s Deputy Attorney General chose to release Peter Strzok’s texts (which criticized Hillary and Bernie Sanders, in addition to Trump), but not those of agents who wrote pro-Trump texts on their FBI devices; that decision is currently the subject of a Privacy Act lawsuit
  3. After Trump used Jim Comey’s gross mistreatment of Hillary in actions that was among the most decisive acts of the 2016 election as his excuse to fire Comey, DOJ IG investigated Comey for publicly revealing the real reason Trump fired him
  4. No Justice Department officials were faulted for the Carter Page errors, and subsequent reports from DOJ IG revealed that the number of Woods file errors against Page were actually fewer than in other applications; note, too, that Page was a former associate of Trump’s, not a current one
  5. Investigations against both Hillary (two separate ones predicated on Clinton Cash) and Trump were predicated using oppo research, but perceptions about the Steele dossier ended up being more central because in significant part through the way Oleg Deripaska played both sides
  6. One of the IRS agents Goldsmith treats as credible refused to turn over his emails for discovery for eight months when asked and the other revealed that he thought concerns about Sixth Amendment problems with the case were merely a sign of “liberal” bias; both have ties to Chuck Grassley and one revealed that ten months after obtaining a laptop that appears to have been the result of hacking, DOJ had still never forensically validated the contents of it
  7. In the wake of that organized campaign against Hunter Biden, a Trump appointed US Attorney limited the scope of the plea which led to a Trump appointed judge refusing to accept it

For each instance of perceived unfairness Goldsmith cites — again, without explaining who is doing the perceiving — there’s a backstory of how that perception was constructed.

Which is the more important insight Gonzales offers: That perceived unfairness Goldsmith merely parrots, unquestioned? Trump deliberately created it.

[A]s I watched a former president of the United States, for the first time in history, be arraigned in federal court for attempting to obstruct official proceedings and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, I found myself less troubled by the actions of former president Donald Trump than by the response of a significant swath of the American people to Trump’s deepening legal woes.

[snip]

While Trump has a right to defend himself, his language and actions since 2016 have fueled a growing sense among many Americans that our justice system is rigged and biased against him and his supporters.

Sadly, this has led on the right to a growing distrust of and rage against the Justice Department.

[snip]

We have a duty as Americans not to blindly trust our justice system, but we also shouldn’t blindly trust those who say it is unjust. Our government officials have a duty to act at all times with integrity, and when appropriate to inform and reassure the public that their decisions are consistent based on provable evidence and in accordance with the rule of law.

Defendants do not have the same duty. They can, and sometimes do, say almost anything to prove their innocence — no matter how damaging to our democracy and the rule of law. [my emphasis]

Trump’s false claims of grievance, his concerted, seven year effort to evade any accountability, are themselves the source of damage to democracy and rule of law, not the perception that arises from Trump’s propaganda.

Which beings me back to the question of who is perceiving this unfairness. By labeling these things “perceived” reality, Goldsmith abdicates any personal responsibility.

Goldsmith abdicates personal responsibility for debunking the more obvious false claims, such as that Hunter Biden, after five years of relentless attacks assisted by Bill Barr’s creation of a way to ingest known Russian disinformation about him without holding Rudy legally accountable for what he did to obtain it, after five years of dedicated investigation by an IRS group normally focused on far bigger graft, somehow got a sweetheart deal.

More troubling, from a law professor, Goldsmith abdicates personal responsibility for his own false claims about the legal novelty of the January 6 indictment against Trump.

The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power.

One reason the investigation took so long — one likely reason why DOJ stopped well short of alleging Trump incited the violence on the Capitol and Mike Pence personally, in spite of all the evidence he did so deliberately and with malign intent — is to eliminate any First Amendment claim. One might repeat this claim if one had not read the indictment itself and instead simply repeated Trump’s lawyers claims or the reports of political journalists themselves parroting Trump’s claims, but not after a review of how the conspiracies are constructed.

As to the claim that all three statutes are novel applications? That’s an argument that says a conspiracy to submit documents to the federal government that were identified as illegal in advance is novel. Kenneth Chesbro wrote down in advance that the fake elector plot was legally suspect, then went ahead and implemented the plan anyway. John Eastman acknowledged repeatedly in advance that the requests they were making of Mike Pence were legally suspect, but then went ahead and told an armed, angry crowd otherwise.

The claim that all three charges are novel applications is especially obnoxious with regards to 18 USC 1512(c)(2) and (k), because the application has already been used more than 300 times (including with people who did not enter the Capitol). The DC Circuit has already approved the treatment of the vote certification as an official proceeding. And — as I personally told Goldsmith — whatever definition of “corruptly” the DC Circuit and SCOTUS will eventually adopt, it will apply more easily to Trump than to his 300 mobsters. And if SCOTUS were to overturn the application of obstruction to the vote certification — certainly within the realm of possibility from a court whose oldest member has a spouse who might similarly be charged — the response would already be baked in.

To argue that 300 of Trump’s supporters should be charged and he should not is simply obscene.

American democracy, American rule of law, is no doubt in great peril and the prosecutions of Donald Trump for the damage he did to both will further test them.

But those of us who want to preserve democracy and rule of law have an ethical obligation not just to parrot the manufactured grievances of the demagogue attempting to end it, absolving ourselves of any moral responsibility to sort through these claims, but instead to insist on truth as best as we can discern it.

Share this entry

Cruikshank, Gun Control, And Bad Rulings

/24 Comments/in , /by

Index to posts in this series

We’ve looked at two early cases interpreting the Reconstruction Amendments, The Slaughterhouse Cases and US v. Cruikshank. These cases are still in force, and have done massive damage, to Black people especially and others who hoped to gain their rightful freedom; to the balance of power among the three branches of government; and to our jurisprudence. Recent 2nd Amendment cases are good examples of this damage.

Gun control

Recapitulation of the old cases. In The Slaughterhouse Cases the Supreme Court analyzes §1 of the 14th Amendment (text below). The second sentence bars states from abridging the privileges or immunities of “citizens of the United States”. The Court says this provision applies only to the tiny number of privileges or immunities that attach to people solely as citizens of the US. It doesn’t apply to their rights as citizens of a specific state.

The Court says that the !4th Amendment doesn’t change the relationship between state and federal governments. 83 US 77-78. It’s a negative argument: such a monumental change must be in very clear language, and this isn’t clear enough to suit the Court.

In Cruikshank, the Court examines the rights which the defendants allegedly illegally conspired to violate. One is the right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose. Here is the Cruikshank Court’s entire discussion of that issue.

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the Constituton of the United States.

Citing several older cases, the Court says that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms; all it does is bar the US from infringing on that right. It says that states can regulate the ownership of arms as part of their police power.

To summarize:
1. The 14th Amendment didn’t change the power relations between the state and federal governments.
2. Rights not specific to the Constitution are solely the domain of the states under their police power.
3. The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights to anyone. It merely prohibits the US from infringing the right to bear arms.
4. Any important change in the laws or Constitution must be clear enough to suit the Supreme Court.

Current cases. Eventually the Supreme Court started applying the Bill of Rights to the states using the Due Process Clause. By the time Heller v. Dist. of Columbia was decided, most of the Bill of Rights had become more or less applicable to the states.

In Heller Scalia cites Cruikshank approvingly. He writes: “States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers.” He completely ignores the holding of Cruikshank and several older cases that the only function of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit the US from infringing the right, as well as the holding that the right does not arise from the Constitution. He simply imposes his own textualist reading of the 2nd Amendment as if it were written today instead of 240 years ago.

A few years later in Macdonald v. City of Chicago Alito put SCOTUS in charge of controling state power over guns. The Seventh Circuit had upheld Chicago’s gun regulations, relying in part on Cruikshank. Alito says the issue is: “… whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process,” an issue not considered by the lower courts. Cruikshank isn’t applicable because it only considered the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Alito gives a short history of cases applying the Due Process Clause to the Bill of Rights starting with this: “The constitutional Amendments adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War fundamentally altered our country’s federal system.” He doesn’t tell us what that change is, or how it applies to guns.

He cites Heller for the proposition that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to bear arms. Then he announces that the right to and bear arms is covered by the Due Process Clause. There isn’t really an explanation for this. Alito just says it’s, like, you know, fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty, amirite, for every American to carry a gun for “self-defense”. Like this guy.

Then in Bruen, Clarence Thomas says that the only allowable limits on the the right to keep and bear arms are those the states imposed prior to either 1789 or 1868. Whatever that right was, the states obviously regulated it under their police powers, but Thomas doen’t even mention Cruikshank and The Slaughterhouse Cases. I guess Macdonald says it was unconstitutional for states to regulate guns after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, even though they had that right under Cruikshank and used it for 130 years.

Conclusion. The end result is that we can only regulate guns if five members of the NRA Court permit it. And now we learn that Bruen didn’t slake the blood lust of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They want to flood the country with ghost guns.

Why Not Overrule Those Old Cases?

I think one reason SCOTUS doesn’t overrule Cruikshank and The Slaughterhouse Cases is that it would change our understanding of our dual sovereignty system. In The Slaughterhouse Cases the Court said that a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment “…would constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment.” Of course SCOTUS is already doing that, as in gun regulation cases.

But if we dropped the pretense that the states are the dominant power in deciding the rights of citizens, SCOTUS would lose one of its go-to arguments against federal laws it doesn’t like. Dobbs, for example, says that the right to abortion should be decided by the states. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act offends the dignity of the states (no, really), according to Shelby County v. Holder. And in NFIB v. Sebelius, SCOTUS says that the US can’t pressure the states to provide Medicaid to all their citizens, who, I note, are also citizens of the US, because state dignity is so important to suffering people.

There’s another possibility. The right-wing six simply don’t care about any of the traditional pillars of jurisprudence, such as stability, deference to the other branches, institutional reputation, and procedural constraints on power. And they’re careless. They don’t even try to be coherent or to clean up the loose ends of precedent that held for 150 years, or to create workable rules. See part IIIB of Breyer’s dissent in Heller and the dangers to society created by Bruen, as in the Rahimi case.

It’s bad enough that we’re goverened by five or six unelected lawyers. It’s worse that tbese second-rate people do such shoddy work.

———————
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Share this entry

The Overt Investigative Steps into Trump’s Co-Conspirators TV Lawyers Ignored

/86 Comments/in , , /by

The first overt act in the investigation into Donald Trump’s six co-conspirators happened on January 25, 2021.

The Jeffrey Clark investigation started at DOJ IG

On that day, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that he was opening an investigation, “into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The announcement came three days after Katie Benner did a story laying out Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to undermine the election results. Horowitz explained that he made the announcement, “to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations.”

We don’t know all the details about what happened between Horowitz’s announcement of that investigation and last week’s indictment describing Clark as co-conspirator 4. Probably, when Merrick Garland arranged for Joe Biden to waive Executive Privilege so Jeffrey Rosen and others could tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what happened in July 2021, that freed up some communications to DOJ IG. For the record, I raised questions about why it took so long — though I suspect the delay in restoring the contacts policy at DOJ was part of it. Some time before May 26, 2022, DOJ obtained warrants for a private Jeffrey Clark email account and on May 26, Beryl Howell approved a filter process. On June 23, 2022, the FBI seized Clark’s phone — with some involvement of DOJ IG — and the next day DOJ seized a second email account of Clark’s. When FBI seized Clark’s phone, I predicted it would take at least six months to fully exploit Clark’s phone, because that’s what it was generally taking, even without a complex privilege review. Indeed, five months after first seizing some of Clark’s cloud content, on September 27, 2022, he was continuing to make frivolous privilege claims to keep his own account of the events leading up to January 6 out of the hands of investigators.

The first overt act in the investigation into one of Trump’s co-conspirators happened 926 days ago. Yet TV lawyers continue to insist the investigation that has resulted in an indictment including Clark as Donald Trump’s co-conspirator didn’t start in earnest until Jack Smith was appointed in November 2022.

A privilege review of Rudy’s devices was set in motion (in the Ukraine investigation) in April 2021

Clark is not the only one of Trump’s co-conspirators against whom investigative steps occurred in 2021, when TV lawyers were wailing that nothing was going on.

Take the December 6, 2020 Kenneth Chesebro memo that forms part of the progression mapped in the indictment from Chesebro’s efforts to preserve Wisconsin votes to trying to steal them. NYT liberated a copy and wrote it up here. It’s not clear where DOJ first obtained a copy, but one place it was available, which DOJ took steps to obtain starting on April 21, 2021 and which other parts of DOJ would have obtained by January 19, 2022, was on one of the devices seized from Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine influence-peddling investigation. The PDF of a December 6 Kenneth Chesebro memo shows up in Rudy’s privilege log in the Ruby Freeman suit, marked with a Bates stamp from the Special Master review initiated by SDNY.

While Rudy is claiming privilege over it in Freeman’s lawsuit, it is highly likely Barbara Jones ruled that it was not (only 43 documents, total, were deemed privileged in that review, and there are easily that many emails pertaining to Rudy’s own defense in his privilege log).

The way in which SDNY did that privilege review, in which SDNY asked and Judge Paul Oetken granted in September 2021 that the review would cover all content post-dating January 1, 2018, was public in real time. I noted in December 2021, that Rudy’s coup-related content would be accessible, having undergone a privilege review, at any such time as DC investigators obtained probable cause for a warrant to access it.

Since then, Rudy has claimed — to the extent that claims by Rudy are worth much — that all his coup-related content would be available, and would only be available, via materials seized in that review. (In reality, much of this should also have been available on Gmail and iCloud, and Rudy’s Protonmail account does not appear to have been captured in the review at all.)

But unless you believe that Rudy got designated co-conspirator 1 in the indictment without DOJ ever showing probable cause against him, unless you believe DOJ decided to forego directly relevant material that was already privilege-reviewed and in DOJ custody, then we can be certain January 6 investigators did obtain that content, and once they did, the decisions made in April and August and September 2021 would have shaved nine months of time off the investigation into him going forward.

Indeed, those materials are one likely explanation for why DOJ’s investigation, as represented by subpoenas sent starting in May 2022, had a slightly different focus than January 6 Committee did. The first fake elector warrants sent in May 2022 as well as those sent in June and November all included Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova. Rudy’s known J6C interview included the couple as key members of his post-election team. But no one else seems to have cared or figured out what they did. After Rudy listed them in his January 6 interview, the Committee never once raised them again. But they were always part of a sustained focus by DOJ.

The more explicit investigative steps targeting Rudy have come more recently. Rudy was subpoenaed for information about how he was paid in November 2022. He sat for an interview in June.

But a privilege review on the coup-related content on seven of Rudy’s devices would have been complete by January 19, 2022 — the day before the long privilege battle between J6C and John Eastman started.

DOJ’s investigation of Sidney Powell’s graft was overt by September 2021

The investigation into one more of the six co-conspirators described in Trump’s indictment was also overt already in 2021: Sidney Powell.

Subpoenas sent out in September — along with allegations that Powell’s associates had made damning recordings of her — were first reported in November 2021. The investigation may have started under the same theory as Jack Smith’s recent focus on Trump: That Powell raised money for one thing but spent the money on something else, her legal defense. Molly Gaston, one of the two prosecutors who has shown an appearance on Trump’s indictment and who dropped off her last crime scene cases in March 2021, played a key role in the investigation.

By the time of DOJ’s overt September steps, both Florida’s Nikki Fried and Dominion had raised concerns about the legality of Powell’s graft.

According to Byrne, Powell had received a wave of donations in the aftermath of the election after being praised by mega-popular right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh. But the donations were often given haphazardly, sometimes as a dollar bill or quarter taped to a postcard addressed to Powell’s law office. Byrne claims he discovered that Powell had amassed a fortune in contributions, somewhere between $20 and $30 million but provided no evidence to support the claim. A projected budget for Defending the Republic filed with the state of Florida lists only $7 million in revenue for the group.

Defending the Republic’s funds weren’t going towards the pro-Trump goals donors likely envisioned, according to Byrne. Instead, he claimed they were spent on paying legal bills for Powell, who has faced court disciplinary issues and a daunting billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems.

“It shouldn’t be called ‘Defending the Republic,’” Byrne said in the recording. “It should be called ‘Defending the Sidney Powell.’”

Attorneys for Dominion have also raised questions about the finances for Defending the Republic, which the voting technology company has sued alongside Powell. In court documents filed in May, Dominion accused Powell of “raiding [Defending the Republic’s funds] to pay for her personal legal defense.”

Dominion attorneys claimed in the filing that Powell began soliciting donations to Defending the Republic before officially incorporating the group. That sequence, they argued, meant that donations for the group “could not have been maintained separately in a bank account” and “would have necessarily been commingled in bank accounts controlled by [Powell].”

[snip]

Defending the Republic’s finances first attracted the scrutiny of regulators in Florida shortly after Powell founded the group in November 2020 when authorities received a complaint and subsequently issued a subpoena to internet hosting service GoDaddy for information about the group’s website.

In a June press conference, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried said Defending the Republic was “found to be soliciting contributions from the State of Florida or from persons within the State of Florida” on the internet “without having filed in the State of Florida” as a charitable organization.”

On Aug. 24, Defending the Republic paid a $10,000 fine as part of a settlement agreement with Florida authorities over its fundraising.

All that graft would directly overlap with the sole focus on Powell in the indictment: on her false claims about voting fraud, particularly relating to Dominion. Aside from a claim that Powell was providing rolling production of documents in January 2022, it’s not clear what further steps this investigation took. Though it’s not clear whether Powell showed up on any subpoenas before one sent days after Jack Smith’s appointment in November.

Unlike Clark and Eastman, there have been no public reports that Powell had her phone seized.

DOJ may have piggybacked off John Eastman’s legislative purpose subpoena

DOJ’s overt focus on John Eastman came after the January 6 Committee’s long privilege battle over his Chapman University emails. Two months after Judge David Carter found some of Eastman’s email to be crime-fraud excepted (at a lower standard for “corruptly” under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) than was being used in DC District cases already), DOJ obtained its own warrant for Eastman’s emails, and a month later, his phone.

While it seems like DOJ piggybacked off what J6C was doing, the phone warrant, like Clark’s issued on the same day, also had involvement from DOJ IG.

Whatever the import of J6C, it’s notable that J6C was able to get those emails for a legislative purpose, without first establishing probable cause a crime had occurred. DOJ surely could have subpoenaed Eastman themselves (though not without tipping him off), but it’s not clear they could have obtained the email in the same way, particularly not if they had to show “otherwise illegal” actions to do so, which was the standard Beryl Howell adopted in her first 1512(c)(2) opinion, issued orally on January 21, 2022.

DOJ’s focus on Kenneth Chesebro (whom J6C didn’t subpoena until July 2022, months after DOJ was including him on subpoenas; see correction below) and whoever co-conspirator 6 is likely were derivative of either Rudy and/or Eastman; J6C subpoenaed Rudy, Powell, and Epshteyn on January 18 — though Epshteyn did not comply — and Mike Roman on March 28. Epshteyn shows up far more often in Rudy’s privilege log than Roman does.

But of the four main co-conspirators in Trump’s indictment, DOJ opportunistically found means to take investigative steps — the DOJ IG investigation, probable cause warrants in another investigation, and a fundraising investigation — to start investigating at least three of the people who last week were described as Trump’s co-conspirators. Importantly, with Clark and Rudy, such an approach likely helped break through privilege claims that would otherwise require first showing the heightened probable cause required before obtaining warrants on an attorney.

We know a fair amount about where and when the investigation into four of Trump’s six co-conspirators came from. And for three of those, DOJ took investigative steps in 2021, before the January 6 Committee sent out their very first subpoena. Yet because those investigative steps didn’t happen where most TV commentators were looking — notably, via leaks from defense attorneys — those steps passed largely unnoticed and unobstructed.

Update, August 20: The J6C sent a subpoena to Chesebro in March, before the July one that was discussed at his deposition.

Share this entry

The “Crazy” Kraken Conspirator

/129 Comments/in , , /by

Sidney Powell is undoubtedly co-conspirator 3 in Trump’s January 6 indictment.

Co-Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3’s disinformation.

But her role — as described — is actually very limited. Just one paragraph describes her actions:

20. On November 16, 2020, on the Defendant’s behalf, his executive assistant sent Co-Conspirator 3 and others a document containing bullet points critical of a certain voting machine company, writing, “See attached – Please include as is, or almost as is, in lawsuit.” Co-Conspirator 3 responded nine minutes later, writing, “IT MUST GO IN ALL SUITS IN GA AND PA IMMEDIATELY WITH A FRAUD CLAIM THAT REQUIRES THE ENTIRE ELECTION TO BE SET ASIDE in those states and machines impounded for non-partisan professional inspection.” On November 25, Co-Conspirator 3 filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia falsely alleging “massive election fraud” accomplished through the voting machine company’s election software and hardware. Before the lawsuit was even filed, the Defendant retweeted a post promoting it. The Defendant did this despite the fact that when he had discussed Co-Conspirator 3’s far-fetched public claims regarding the voting machine company in private with advisors, the Defendant had conceded that they were unsupported and that Co-Conspirator 3 sounded “crazy.” Co-Conspirator 3’s Georgia lawsuit was dismissed on December 7.

Go back and look! Her most famous role — when she got cleared into the White House and told Trump he should make her Special Counsel and seize the voting machines — doesn’t appear at all. Indeed, my greatest disappointment with the indictment is that it doesn’t explain one of the enduring mysteries of January 6: what led Trump to adopt January 6 as his plan shortly after that meeting.

It describes Trump’s December 19 tweet — the tweet that triggered thousands of MAGAts to start planning a trip to DC — but not what led up to it.

Curse you, Jack Smith!!!

What a remarkable structure, then, for including Sidney Powell in this indictment.

From the description of Powell at the beginning, it makes it sound like she is in there as proof that Trump knew his claims were false: In November, he declared her crazy. But he nevertheless kept magnifying her craziness.

That would almost help prove that Trump knew she was a liar when he used her propaganda.

But paragraph 20 says something different: It says that on November 16, on a date she was still ostensibly on Rudy’s team, Trump fed her the Dominion voting machine false claims and told her — Trump told Powell, not vice versa — to include the Dominion claims.

The false claims about Dominion, according to this, came from Trump.

And then, after Rudy and Jenna Ellis publicly separated themselves from her, Powell submitted the first of a number of lawsuits that would rely on the Dominion claim.

And when called on her crazy, Sidney Powell claimed that, “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.”

It’s not just Trump who thinks she’s crazy, she thinks she’s crazy.

But once she filed that lawsuit, on November 25, Trump boosted it.

That’s all pretty interesting timing given something else that was occurring at the very same time. At a time when they were both together in South Carolina plotting how to steal the election for Trump, Trump pardoned Mike Flynn.

The same crazy that went into Sidney Powell’s election disinformation went into her claims about Flynn. If Trump thought she was crazy, he should never have pardoned Flynn.

It gets still more interesting from there — including to where Powell funded at least some of the Oath Keepers’ defense — including, possibly, Kelly Meggs’ attorney, Stan Woodward.

You get the idea.

Even without her plan to seize the voting machines on December 18, even without Flynn’s call for martial law in the days leading up to it, the timeline laid out in the indictment — where Trump gave Powell the Dominion claims, then decided she was crazy, then pardoned her client based off her crazy claims — sure piles up some interesting implications in what are just two paragraphs of a 130-paragraph indictment.

Share this entry

Three of Stan Woodward’s Eight Current and Former Clients Prepare to Testify against Each Other

/43 Comments/in , , /by

It turns out that Stan Woodward has or still is representing enough witnesses in the stolen document case to field an ultimate frisbee team (seven people).

He would have even had a sub before Yuscil Taveras got a new lawyer on July 5.

Those are the details DOJ included in a motion for a Garcia hearing in the stolen documents case, asking Judge Cannon to conduct a colloquy with Walt Nauta and two witnesses the government may call to testify against Nauta, to make sure they’re all cool with the conflicts that representing clients with adverse interests may pose.

According to the filing, DOJ first told Woodward about the potential conflict that representing both Taveras and Nauta might pose in February, then again in March.

In February and March 2023, the Government informed Mr. Woodward, orally and in writing, that his concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta raised a potential conflict of interest. The Government specifically informed Mr. Woodward that the Government believed Trump Employee 4 had information that would incriminate Nauta. Mr. Woodward informed the Government that he was unaware of any testimony that Trump Employee 4 would give that would incriminate Nauta and had advised Trump Employee 4 and Nauta of the Government’s position about a possible conflict. According to Mr. Woodward, he did not have reason to believe his concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta raised a conflict of interest.

Taveras’ testimony that he told Carlos De Oliveira to call the guys who could give him permissions to start deleting things provides critical context for the text that Nauta sent Matthew Calamari Sr. around the same time.

For his part, Taveras is okay with Woodward staying on the case so long has he doesn’t use any confidences he shared to cross-examine him.

The Government has conferred with Trump Employee 4’s new counsel, and Trump Employee 4 does not intend to waive his rights to confidentiality, loyalty, and conflict-free representation with respect to his earlier representation by Mr. Woodward.

[snip]

Trump Employee 4’s presence at the hearing is not required. As set forth above, Trump Employee 4 has informed the Government, through his new counsel, that he takes no position as to Mr. Woodward’s continuing representation of Nauta (or anyone else) but does not consent to the use or disclosure of his client confidences and expects Mr. Woodward to comport with the ethical rules regarding maintenance of client confidences.

That would mean that Woodward may not be able to defend Nauta as vigorously as he otherwise might, because he might pull his punches against Taveras.

That’s part of the reason prosecutors want Cannon to make sure Nauta understands the limitations this may put on Woodward’s representation of him.

But that’s not all. Of the eight total witnesses in this investigation that Woodward has represented, two other people he still represents may also testify against Nauta, and their interests may conflict as well.

Nauta is represented by Stanley Woodward, Jr., who has represented at least seven other individuals who have been questioned in connection with the investigation. Those individuals include the director of information technology for Mar-a-Lago (identified in the superseding indictment as Trump Employee 4) and two individuals who worked for Trump during his presidency and afterwards (hereafter Witness 1 and Witness 2).

[snip]

Witness 1 worked in the White House during Trump’s presidency and then subsequently worked for Trump’s post-presidential office in Florida. Mr. Woodward has represented Witness 1 in connection with this case and, to the Government’s knowledge, continues to do so.

Witness 2 worked for Trump’s reelection campaign and worked for Trump’s political action committee after Trump’s presidency ended. Mr. Woodward has represented Witness 2 in connection with this case and, to the Government’s knowledge, continues to do so.

I told you I was missing some of the people he represents on the list I included in this post!

So on top of being paid by the PAC that’s under criminal investigation as part of a fraud scheme, Woodward is now representing an ultimate frisbee team’s worth of witnesses who may have to testify against each other.

This is the problem with omertàs: when they start to fail, they can collapse quickly.

I have argued that Woodward has done several things in this case — most recently, in demanding that Nauta get access to the classified documents he doesn’t have a need to know — designed to test how much Judge Cannon will let get the defense away with.

This one is a pretty big test of Judge Cannon, however.

Share this entry

“Rights” and Wrongs: Where the Stolen Documents Investigation Is Headed

/194 Comments/in , , /by

I want to start this post about where the stolen documents investigation may be headed with an observation a commenter here made about this passage of the superseding indictment: the import of the word, the “rights,” coming from an IT guy who would think in terms of access privileges.

The passage comes in the midst of the Keystone Cops routine where Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira try to figure out how to achieve Trump’s apparent order — probably given during a 24-minute phone call to De Oliveira on June 23 and to Nauta face-to-face at Bedminster sometime between 3:44 and 5:02PM on June 24 — to delete the surveillance server. They were stomping around, squawking about how sensitive this mission was. Nauta sent someone texts with shush emojis and De Oliveira told a valet Nauta’s visit should remain secret.

The evening of June 25 — one day after DOJ sent Trump Organization a subpoena for surveillance video — they get a flashlight and go to inspect what the surveillance cameras would pick up; by moving in front of the surveillance cameras, which we now know are motion activated, they would have triggered the cameras, thereby creating more damning surveillance footage.

Imagine the video exhibit at trial, as both Nauta and De Oliveira point a flashlight at the surveillance camera that, weeks earlier, caught both of them moving just half the boxes full of classified documents back into the storage room, two earnest faces looking straight into the camera. That footage wouldn’t be covered by the subpoena they were, at that moment, trying to defy; it would probably be covered by the next subpoena.

Two days later (there’s no indication of how Nauta spent his day on Sunday June 26), on June 27, De Oliveira walks into the IT room and asks Yuscil Taveras in front of a witness (possibly in front of another security camera) to step away so they could speak. They go to what they call an “audio closet” (which could be the decommissioned SCIF) and De Oliveira tells Taveras that “the boss” wants the surveillance server deleted.

Taveras says three things in response:

  1. He doesn’t know how to accomplish that
  2. He doesn’t have the “rights” to do that
  3. To accomplish the task, De Oliveira would have to reach out to one of the Matthew Calamaris

The words, “rights,” here hasn’t gotten enough attention. Taveras was saying that he did not have the computer privileges to just delete the surveillance server: one of the Matthew Calamaris in New York would have to be involved to make such a thing happen.

So after that, De Oliveira checks back in with Nauta (who has flown to Florida to accomplish this task, along with whatever he did on June 26), they stomp around some more in suspicious ways that are visible to yet more surveillance cameras, and then two hours later Trump speaks to De Oliveira for 3.5 minutes. As described, Trump calls De Oliveira, not the other way around.

Remember how I said — of the January 6 investigation — that the January 6 investigation would take more time than the Watergate investigation because, unlike Nixon, Trump is not known to have wiretapped himself?

Well, on the stolen documents investigation, he did, effectively, wiretap himself, or at least all the employees he sent to accomplish his corrupt mission. And then Trump tried, over and over, to Rosemary Woods away incriminating video, at least this first time, captured on video again.

But amid all the Keystone Cops stomping around talking about secrets while on surveillance camera and sending shush texts, what Taveras said is an important hint of where this investigation may go next (as I laid out here).

Thus far, this story — and the conspiracy as charged so far — is just a story of a failed attempt to destroy surveillance video. De Oliveira: Can you delete the server? Taveras: Nope. I don’t have the rights. Stomp stomp stomp, almost all of it on surveillance video.

The Keystone Cops caper ends with Trump calling De Oliveira at 3:55PM on June 27, with no word of what led Trump to call De Oliveira and no word of whether whatever video got deleted was deleted in Florida or New York, or somewhere else.

The superseding indictment doesn’t mention, for example, the text that Nauta sent Calamari Sr — possibly even between 1:50PM when he and De Oliveira were stomping in bushes adjacent to Mar-a-Lao and the phone call that Trump made to De Oliveira at 3:55PM.

Both Calamaris testified to the federal grand jury in Washington on Thursday, and were questioned in part on a text message that Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, had sent them around the time that the justice department last year asked for the surveillance footage, one of the people said.

The text message is understood to involve Nauta asking Matthew Calamari Sr to call him back about the justice department’s request,

Calamari was the guy, Taveras told De Oliveira, who would have the privileges to delete surveillance footage. And sometime in that period, Nauta texted him about the surveillance request.

Thus far, this is a story and a crime about an alleged attempt to delete surveillance footage. But we can be pretty certain that surveillance video was, in fact, deleted. That’s because reporters have reported on witnesses being asked that for months. There would be no reason to obtain nine months of surveillance video — 57 terabytes of raw video, if you can believe the defense attorneys — unless there was a whole bunch more to learn from the surveillance videos.

The initial production also included some 57 terabytes of compressed raw CCTV footage (so far there is approximately nine months of CCTV footage, but the final number is not yet certain).

And there would be no reason for Trump, on August 26, to get Nauta to verify De Oliveira’s loyalty (stomp stomp stomp) before arranging to provide him a lawyer if what came next, what happened after Trump’s phone call to De Oliveira on June 27 isn’t even more damning.

Indeed, that’s why it matters that — buried in a Devlin Barrett story opining that De Oliveira’s, “alleged actions could bolster the obstruction case against the former president” because apparently Devlin hasn’t learned his lesson about presenting evidence of more serious crimes and calling it obstruction — Trump (unusually) came back to Mar-a-Lago twice between June 3 and August 8: once from July 10 to 12, and once again on July 23, and that De Oliveira told the FBI he had given away the key to storage when they showed up on August 8.

The Keystone Cop caper, in part because it is so colorful and in part because it is charged as an unsuccessful attempt, has distracted most commentators from the fact that there was a more successful attempt, and that more successful attempt didn’t hide the movement of boxes in and out of the storage closet. As I’ve noted, all the movement of boxes in May and June shows up in the search affidavit relying on what DOJ did get from Trump, save one: Nauta’s retrieval of a single box on May 22.

The superseding indictment describes that the subpoena asked for footage from “certain locations,” plural, of which the basement hallway is just one. And the most recent unsealing of the affidavit reveals that the only cameras included on the hard drive of surveillance footage turned over on July 6 were four cameras in the basement hallway. So one way or another, footage of those other locations was not turned over in response to the first subpoena.

Everyone treats this indictment as a terminal indictment — and if that’s as far as Jack Smith gets, it’s still far more damning than most everyone imagined on June 8. But multiple public references — the discussion on July 13 of continued efforts to fully exploit Nauta’s phone, the reference in DOJ’s descriptions of discovery that suggest there’s a grand jury somewhere other than DC or SDFL, and the suggestion that interviews have continued after June 23 — suggests that the current instantiation of the indictment is intended to be part of an ongoing investigation.

I noted from the first indictment that it was a “tactical nuke” designed to persuade Nauta to cooperate. Not only hasn’t the effort worked, but Stan Woodward has adopted a position on classified discovery — that Nauta, in addition to his attorneys, should get to see all the stolen classified documents — that I think makes it more likely DOJ would supersede to add a conspiracy to retain classified documents charge with him, because the elements of offense are all satisfied in the existing indictment.

Here are the obvious things that obtaining credible cooperation from Nauta would obtain:

  • ¶25: Details of Trump’s intent as Nauta helped pack up documents from the White House
  • ¶46: Why Trump was trying to hide when he instructed Nauta to replace the lids of the boxes
  • ¶54: What he was sent for on May 22
  • ¶61: What Trump instructed Nauta before he moved half the boxes back into storage for Evan Corcoran to search
  • ¶73: What boxes got loaded on the plane to Mar-a-Lago on June 3
  • ¶78: What Trump told him at Bedminster that led him to fly to Florida and try to bury the surveillance video (as well as what else he did on June 26, which is not accounted for)
  • ¶86: What both men discussed in the bushes
  • How Nauta came to text Matthew Calamari
  • ¶91: How Trump came to ask Nauta to ascertain De Oliveira’s loyalty and whether Trump had similarly offered him legal representation
  • What Nauta witnessed as Trump’s bodyman, especially in Bedminster

Here are the obvious things that obtaining credible cooperation from De Oliveira would obtain:

  • ¶76: Details of the 24-minute call he had with Trump, while Trump was at Bedminster
  • ¶86: What both men discussed in the bushes
  • ¶87: What Trump said on the phone call and whether De Oliveira had a role in the successful deletion of video, and how he knew what to delete
  • ¶91: What the terms of his representation are and whether it led him to lie (a question, other reports have made clear, many witnesses have been asked)
  • Why Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago twice before the August 8 search
  • To whom he gave the key to the storage room and on whose orders
  • Whether the October flood of the server room was an(other) attempt to destroy surveillance footage and if so, whether he was instructed to do so

De Oliveira might be a key witness to lead Nauta to reconsider his decision to protect Trump.

More importantly, one or both might be irreplaceable witnesses to answer a number of closely intertwined questions:

  • How is Trump is using lawyers to command loyalty and does it create conflict or obstruction issues
  • What surveillance footage has Trump prioritized for destruction and why
  • Why did Trump steal the documents, how has he used them, and where did the ones that went to Bedminster disappear to
  • What role does Trump’s PAC have in exploitation of the documents
  • What role does Trump Organization have in exploitation of the documents
  • Who else has had ready access to these documents

All this superseding indictment shows is that Trump had something to hide that goes beyond his desire to hoard the classified documents. Jack Smith may require the cooperation of one or both of these men to fully understand what Trump is really hiding.

This fairly remarkable post from the WSJ opinion page demonstrates the stakes of trying to answer it. It’s a pitch to elect someone other than Trump in the GOP primary, and premised on an utterly bullshit claim that Biden has politicized justice. But it gets a good distance of the way to an important discovery: even the Keystone Cops attempt already included in the indictment totally debunks Trump’s public defense, because if he believed in June 2022 that he had the right to keep these, he wouldn’t have dug himself — and thus far two staffers — deeper into a legal hole.

If Mr. Trump sought to destroy evidence, it undercuts his defense on the document charges. He contends that the Presidential Records Act gives him the right to retain documents from his time in office. But if Mr. Trump believed that, he would have played it straight. If the indictment is right that he hid the files from his own lawyers and tried to wipe the security video to stop anybody from finding out, then he didn’t buy his own defense.

From a Murdoch rag, this is a really important insight. But then WSJ predictably refuses to take the next logical step: That Trump’s obstruction makes it clear he didn’t just do this out of pigheadedness.

Prudential questions about the wisdom of this prosecution remain. Mr. Trump appears to have kept the files out of pigheadedness, not because he wanted to do something nefarious like sell them to an adversary. The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents.

The episode reflects poorly on Mr. Trump. But is this conduct that truly gives President Biden no choice except to ask a jury to jail his leading political opponent in next year’s election? At least Watergate involved a burglary.

We can’t even rule out a burglary, if Trump learned that he compromised these documents by storing them in his beach resort! Especially since De Oliveira claimed he had given the key away to others. We can’t rule out selling them to an adversary! We sure as hell can’t rule out trying to exploit them for the success of his PAC.

The indictment and an attempt to try this before the general election is an important goal, though potentially unrealistic given the CIPA challenges.

But it really is important to learn what Trump did do with these documents, who got the key, where they disappeared to.

This indictment doesn’t answer the question of why Trump stole these documents or what he did with them. All the superseding indictment did is make the question more urgent.

Update: Fixed Trump’s location from whence he called De Oliveira — the first call would have been Bedminster.

Share this entry

David Weiss Is Wrecking the Right Wing Story (and Likely Sandbagging Hunter Biden)

/30 Comments/in , , /by

I confess I love William Shipley — AKA Shipwreckedcrew, or Wreck, for short — the prosecutor turned defense attorney for seeming zillions of Jan6ers.

Don’t get me wrong: in my opinion, he’s an utter whack and a douchebag.

But — and I mean this in good faith — because he’s batshit but also a real lawyer, it makes him the sweet spot among attorneys that Jan6ers will hire and (sometimes at least) retain, but who will give them decent and at times excellent legal representation. There are a lot of batshit grifters who are little more than parasites on Jan6 defendants. And while I want these mobsters to face justice, I also want them to have competent legal representation along the way. Many of them do not. So while I may find Wreck awful personally, I am grateful he is providing competent representation for the kind of Jan6ers who wouldn’t accept representation from superb public defenders that many Jan6ers believe are communists or pedophiles or whatever other conspiracy theory they vomit up.

I also love Wreck because it drives him insane that, even though my graduate degree is a mere PhD, my observations often are more accurate than his. My favorite is probably the time I correctly predicted that John Durham might successfully breach Fusion’s privilege but not be able to use any of those documents at trial (Durham used one to set an unsuccessful perjury trap anyway). When I do stuff like that Wreck waggles his legal experience around and sics his trolls on me and it’s funny every … single … time.

This may be another of those times. Because Wreck is about to make my case that David Weiss tried something noxious in the abandoned Hunter Biden plea the other day.

You see, I agree with what Popehat had to say about the failed Hunter Biden plea the other day. Judge Maryellen Noreika sussed out that there was a key structural problem with the deal and refused to approve it without some more consideration of whether her role in it is even constitutional.

Friends and neighbors, that is shitty drafting. And if you’re Hunter Biden’s lawyer and telling your client that he can’t be prosecuted for crimes related to those income sources because of that language, that’s reckless advice and bad lawyering. It’s a failure by both attorneys. If Judge Noreika spotted that issue, called it out, and asked for an explanation, then good for her — she’s doing her job, which is to make sure the defendant understands the deal they are accepting.

That said, I’m pretty sure it’s a Frankenstein of a deal, in part, for reasons neither side wants to address until it’s done (Politico posted a transcript of the hearing here). Hunter, probably because he was at real risk for felony tax crimes before the government bolloxed the case so badly. His lawyer, Chris Clark, possibly because Abbe Lowell is on the scene and may be pushing a much more confrontational approach to this investigation. And the government because — on top of the things in the emails that prosecutors thought might blow the entire case — other statutes of limitation are expiring, SCOTUS might soon rule the one felony against Hunter unconstitutional. It turns out, too, that for the contested year (the one Joseph Ziegler said was so damning), both sides agree that Hunter’s accountants overstated his income on his taxes, which makes it hard to argue that Hunter’s treatment of some personal expenses as business expenses was an intent to lie to the IRS.

When asked whether there was any precedent to support what Hunter’s lawyers and the government were trying to do, AUSA Leo Wise, who was brought in to replace the team that was too tainted to prosecute this case, admitted, “No, Your Honor. This was crafted to suit the facts and circumstances.”

In other words, because both sides had fucked up so badly, this agreement is a way to move forward. Or would have been if Judge Noreika hadn’t appropriately refused to be part of a plea that might not be constitutional.

But the Frankenstein plea was written on the back of a remarkable statement of facts, a statement of facts that could have been written by Peter Schweizer, which was completely untethered from the narrow crimes in the two deals. It was so untethered from the elements of the offense involved in the crimes in the plea that Judge Noreika had to direct Wise to explain how it actually met the essential elements of the offense.

I have grave concerns about the ploy that prosecutors may have been attempting — may have succeeded in doing — with that statement of facts.

And the statement of facts is where I get to have fun with Wreck again. He agrees with me it is totally unusual. But he’s sure that that’s because the defense attorneys — who he’s sure wrote it — are trying to get away with a fast one.

“There is a purpose behind it,” Wreck said, “and it’s written in a style that I have NEVER seen come from a prosecutor.”

Only, he’s wrong about who wrote it and so undoubtedly wrong about the purpose behind it.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers didn’t write it. At one point, Chris Clark said that explicitly: “Your Honor, we didn’t write this.” Several times, Hunter or Clark struggled to explain what they believed the government meant by something in the statement of facts, in one instance when they had to address that it was totally unclear what income Hunter earned.

Mr. Clark: My understanding, Your Honor, is that sentence picks up the work described in the last couple of sentences, not just the work for Boise Schiller.

The Court: Well, Mr. Biden actually knows.

The Defendant: Yeah, exactly, Your Honor. I believe what the government intended for that sentence was that it was the total income, not just as it relates to my capacity for Boise Schiller.

When asked why the statement of facts said his addiction problems were well-documented, Hunter responded,

Well, I believe the government is referring to a book that I wrote about my struggles with addiction in that period of my life. And quite possibly other news outlets and interviews and things that have been done.

That phrase — well-documented — had absolutely no place in a document like this, certainly without citations. Indeed, how well-documented his addiction is irrelevant to both the tax crimes and the gun diversion.

Yet no one cleaned it up before this attempted plea.

Perhaps the most remarkable exchange happened when Judge Noreika asked Hunter what the statement of facts meant when it said that his tax liability should not have come as a surprise. He seemed totally unfamiliar with the passage, and when asked, Hunter said that it was a surprise.

THE COURT: All right. On the next page, at the end of the second paragraph, starting four lines from the bottom in the middle of the line, the paragraph talks about your tax liability. And it says the end of year liability should not have come as a surprise. Do you see that?

THE DEFENDANT: I’m sorry, I’m just trying —

THE COURT: That’s okay. Take your time.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I see that here.

THE COURT: It says it should not have come as a surprise. It wasn’t a surprise, is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you knew —

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I don’t — I didn’t write this, Your Honor, so the characterization —

MR. CLARK: Can we elaborate the time there, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CLARK: So essentially there was a tax treatment that was undertaken in that year, and it changed the tax treatment at the very end of the year for a particular asset. And so I think the point is, and I didn’t write this either, there was substantial influx of income during that year. There was an issue with this last minute tax treatment change, and so there were expressions at times of surprise at that. I think the government’s point is you knew you made a lot of money, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

THE COURT: My only concern is when I read this as a lawyer, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise, that doesn’t preclude Mr. Biden from saying yes, it did.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor’s characterization is exactly right.

THE COURT: You’re saying it actually was a surprise?

MR. CLARK: In that year.

THE COURT: You guys are okay with that?

MR. WISE: Yes, Your Honor.

Hunter Biden was under oath for this colloquy (as all plea colloquies are), trying to explain why a document he didn’t write was riddled with ambiguous language and unsubstantiated claims.

And here’s the concern: When Hunter’s lawyers agreed to this, they believed that FARA charges were off the table. But about half the way through this hearing, Wise made it clear they were not.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references 6 to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’m trying to figure out if there is a meeting of the minds here and I’m not sure that this provision isn’t part of the Plea Agreement and so that’s why I’m asking.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor, the Plea Agreement —

THE COURT: I need you to answer my question if you can. Is there a meeting of the minds on that one?

MR. CLARK: As stated by the government just  now, I don’t agree with what the government said.

THE COURT: So I mean, these are contracts. To be enforceable, there has to be a meeting of the minds. So what do we do now?

MR. WISE: Then there is no deal.

I can’t speak to whether any FARA charges against Hunter are meritorious or not and if they are, without taint, by all means prosecute him. The admitted facts about Burisma and CEFC, while far smaller than laid out by Republicans (including, potentially, by Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley under oath), are interesting as much for the kind of information operation we saw being alleged in the Gal Luft prosecution as they are for the possibility they support a FARA prosecution (which is one of two things — the other being the loan that Hunter got from Kevin Morris to pay off his taxes in the first place — for which the statute of limitations would not have expired).

But that’s as much an information operation as it is a FARA violation.

It’s my opinion that this plea deal was crafted to give DOJ a way out of grave problems that exist in their existing case file — problems that Ziegler described in testimony — while kicking off a FARA investigation with sworn admissions made based on, at best, misunderstandings — and possibly outright misrepresentations — of the scope of the deal.

It’s my opinion that this statement of facts was intended to get Hunter to admit under oath to facts underlying FARA violations that DOJ otherwise couldn’t use because the way they got this evidence has been so tainted by Trump’s political influence and hacked computers and other poisonous tree they’d never get it admitted in court.

DOJ already admitted — to Joseph Ziegler at least — that they couldn’t prosecute any of this because of some kind of taint. And it sure looks like this “plea deal” is an attempt to sheepdip the entire prosecution to get Hunter Biden to clean the taint himself.

Share this entry

Chekhov’s Alan Garten: The Human Gaps in the Surveillance Footage Gap

/125 Comments/in , , /by

This post noted, shortly after Trump’s first stolen documents indictment, that the indictment included nothing about the gaps in surveillance footage DOJ spent much of the last year investigating. It also noted that the indictment did not name the maintenance guy who had played a role in moving boxes around.

But the indictment doesn’t hint at when DOJ found gaps in surveillance footage, the topic of numerous recent interviews, or how those gaps got there. In fact, the maintenance guy who flooded the server room doesn’t appear to be mentioned in the indictment at all (his actions are described in ¶61 and ¶72, without a label for him).

As Jay Bratt’s notice to Aileen Cannon of the new details in the superseding indictment released last night explained, those paragraphs now identify newly-charged Carlos De Oliveira by name.

Paragraphs 62 and 63 now identify De Oliveira as the person who helped Nauta move approximately 30 boxes from Trump’s residence to the Storage Room on June 2, 2022, whereas paragraph 61 of the earlier indictment referred to De Oliveira as “an employee of The Mar-a-Lago Club”;

Paragraph 73 alleges that De Oliveira was one of the “others” identified in paragraph 72 of the original indictment who, on June 3, 2022, with Nauta, “loaded several of Trump’s boxes along with other items on aircraft that flew Trump and his family north for the summer”;

Yet even with the inclusion of De Oliveira in the indictment, the gaps about the gaps in the surveillance footage remain.

The conspiracy added to the indictment, laid out in ¶74 through ¶87, describes an attempt to destroy surveillance footage. As described, Walt Nauta and De Oliveira asked someone, identified in the indictment as Trump Employee 4 but who is likely Yuscil Taveras (identified in this story from NYT), to delete the surveillance server, but he said he could not. He told De Oliveira to contact the supervisor of security for Trump Organization.

83. On Monday, June 27, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., DE OLIVEIRA walked to the IT office where Trump Employee 4 was working with another employee in the IT department. DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 step away from the office so that DE OLIVEIRA and Trump Employee 4 could talk.

84. At 9:49 a.m., Trump Employee 4 and DE OLIVEIRA left the area of the IT office together and walked through a basement tunnel. DE OLIVEIRA took Trump Employee 4 to a small room known as an “audio closet” near the White and Gold Ballroom. Once inside the audio closet, DE OLIVEIRA and Trump Employee 4 had the following exchange:

a. DE OLIVEIRA told Trump Employee 4 that their conversation should remain between the two of them.

b. DE OLIVEIRA asked Trump Employee 4 how many days the server retained footage. Trump Employee 4 responded that he believed it was approximately 45 days.

c. DE OLIVEIRA told Trump Employee 4 that “the boss” wanted the server deleted. Trump Employee 4 responded that he would not know how to do that, and that he did not believe he would have the rights to do that. Trump Employee 4 told DE OLIVEIRA that DE OLIVEIRA would have to reach out to another employee who was the supervisor of security for TRUMP’s business organization. DE OLIVEIRA then insisted to TRUMP Employee 4 that “the boss wanted the server deleted and asked, “what are we going to do?” [my emphasis]

But that section ends with Nauta and De Oliveira meeting in the bushes just off Mar-a-Lago property the next day, then walking to the IT office, then walking back to the bushes again. There’s no allegation that Nauta and De Oliveira succeeded in deleting the video.

The entire section is bookended with these paragraphs, which — and I say this as a PhD in Comparative Literature — are narratively brilliant.

74. On June 3, 2022, when FBI agents were at The Mar-a-Lago Club to collect the documents with classification markings from Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 3, the agents observed that there were surveillance cameras located near the Storage Room.

75. On June 22, 2022, the Department of Justice emailed an attorney for TRUMP’s business organization a draft grand jury subpoena requiring the production of certain security camera footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club, including footage from cameras “on ground floor (basement),” where the Storage Room was located.

76. On June 23, 2022, at 8:46 p.m., TRUMP called DE OLIVEIRA and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes.

[snip]

87. [On June 27] At 3:55 p.m., TRUMP called DE OLIVEIRA and they spoke for approximately three and a half minutes. [my emphasis]

The section starts and ends with a call to Trump. But never explains how the gaps ended up in the surveillance footage.

Let me go back.

As noted, and as Bratt noted, the original indictment didn’t identify De Oliveira at all. He was just some “other” guy involved, an employee of the club. In fact, in its first indictment, DOJ used a curious dual form of naming. The following people are clearly identified:

  • Trump and Nauta
  • Trump Employee 1
  • Trump Employee 2 (Molly Michael)
  • PAC Representative (reportedly Susie Wiles)
  • Trump Representative 1 (probably Alex Cannon)
  • Trump Attorney 1 (Evan Corcoran)
  • Trump Attorney 2 (possibly Boris Epshteyn)
  • Trump Attorney 3 (Christina Bobb)

Then there are people who are not identified by name:

  • ¶6a, ¶34: the people to whom he showed the Iran document, and the two staffers (reportedly Margo Martin, who recorded it, and Liz Harrington) who witnessed the interview
  • ¶19: the high level intelligence officials who briefed Trump
  • ¶24: other members of Trump’s White House staff, in addition to Nauta, who helped pack up boxes
  • 58c: A female Trump family member
  • ¶61: an employee of The Mar-a-Lago Club (De Oliveira)
  • ¶72: others, including De Oliveira, who helped load up boxes to go to Bedminster

This new indictment adds three identified Trump employees:

  • Trump Employee 3: the co-worker — who would have been at Bedminster — who alerted Nauta that Trump wanted to see him
  • Trump Employee 4: the IT worker, probably Taveras
  • Trump Employee 5: a valet who was asked — and confirmed in a Signal chat with Nauta — that De Oliveira was loyal

And the indictment adds several more unidentified Trump employees, several of which (like the reference to the female Trump family member in the first) could be sourced entirely to communications obtained from Nauta’s phone.

  • ¶77: The attorney for TRUMP’s business organization
  • ¶79: The people to whom Nauta gave inconsistent explanations of why he was making a secret trip to Florida: one person Nauta told he would not travel with Trump and a Secret Service agent
  • ¶83: Another employee in the IT department
  • ¶84c: Supervisor of Security for Trump’s business organization

Significantly, the original indictment describes how DOJ obtained surveillance footage this way:

In July 2022, the FBI and grand jury obtained and reviewed surveillance video from The Mar-a-Lago Club showing the movement of boxes set forth above.

Though the search warrant affidavit had described that “counsel for the Trump Organization” had a role, the original indictment made no mention of that. It was like a virgin birth of surveillance footage, delivered to the FBI with no explanation.

The other figures described but not named in the superseding indictment may or may not appear in later installments of this tale, like a gun shown in an early act of a play that later goes off.

The last — supervisor of security — is almost certainly Matthew Calamari, Sr, who was one of the very last people to appear before the DC grand jury before this case was moved to Florida and charged. Both Calamari and his son were asked why Nauta texted one of them (it turns out to have been Sr.) to call him about the subpoena request.

Both Calamaris testified to the federal grand jury in Washington on Thursday, and were questioned in part on a text message that Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, had sent them around the time that the justice department last year asked for the surveillance footage, one of the people said.

The text message is understood to involve Nauta asking Matthew Calamari Sr to call him back about the justice department’s request,

But that exchange is for another indictment, possibly even another venue.

In this indictment, though, the attorney for Trump Organization, almost certainly Alan Garten, plays two roles. First, he received the draft subpoena from Jay Bratt on June 22 (this begins to explain the discrepancy regarding the date of the subpoena that I’ve been obsessed with from the start). And he’s the most likely explanation for why, the next day, Trump called De Oliveira and spoke for 24 minutes.

That is, Garten likely told Trump about the subpoena, which set off a process by which employees attempted to destroy surveillance footage in Florida.

According to Michael Cohen’s testimony, Alan Garten is the one responsible for Cohen’s document production to Congress, which ended up withholding documents showing him contacting Dmitri Peskov’s office. And according to the SSCI Report, there were other, “known deficiencies in the Trump Organization’s document responses.”

While DOJ has interviewed Calamari (and so may or may not have gotten honest testimony about what happened when he called Nauta), they are not known to have interviewed Alan Garten, the bar for which would be very high. They have, however, interviewed Alina Habba, who played a role in a suspected Alan Garten shell game to withhold documents from New York State, and in the process did a search of both Bedminster and Mar-a-Lago before DOJ served a subpoena for classified documents.

In spite of all these new details and new players, we still don’t know what happened between June 27, 2022, when Trump Employee 4 told De Oliveiras to reach out to Matthew Calamari and when Trump spoke to De Oliveira for three and a half minutes, and July 6, when Trump Organization turned over two months of video that reportedly had gaps in it.

There are still gaps in this story about how the reported gaps got into the surveillance footage. Indeed, there are still gaps about what the gaps attempted to hide!

As I showed here, the surveillance footage the FBI did get appears to have shown virtually all of Nauta’s box movements — and would have shown De Oliveira helping Nauta move 30 boxes back into storage on June 2 — because the search warrant affidavit relies on it. But they may not have shown Walt Nauta remove a single box from storage on May 22.

That, of course, was just the first subpoena for surveillance footage. There were more, undoubtedly including for footage showing Nauta and De Oliveira checking out the surveillance cameras with a flashlight on June 25, 2022, entering the IT department, walking through a basement tunnel and into an “audio closet,” then walking back into the IT office on June 27, and possibly, still on June 27, walking into the bushes just off of Mar-a-Lago property for two discussions. This superseding indictment must rely on a later subpoena for more surveillance footage from which the specific times of these movements would have been obtained.

Indeed, when De Oliveira allegedly flooded the IT room in October — at a time when Judge Aileen Cannon had put a stay on the investigation of these activities — he may have been attempting to thwart a second or third subpoena attempt, a cover up of the attempted cover up, an attempt to destroy the surveillance footage that ended up in this indictment.

Altogether, the surveillance footage that DOJ has since obtained covers nine different months.

The initial production also included some 57 terabytes of compressed raw CCTV footage (so far there is approximately nine months of CCTV footage, but the final number is not yet certain).

DOJ claims to have pinpointed which cameras they wanted and on what specific dates.

The Government similarly identified to the Defendants a small subset of “key” CCTV footage referenced in the Indictment or otherwise pertinent to the case. See id. And although the CCTV footage the Government obtained and produced comes from various months, the Defendants’ characterization of the production as including “nine months of CCTV footage,” see Resp. at 4, is misleading. The Government obtained footage only from selected cameras (many of which do not continuously record) from selected dates throughout the period for which it obtained footage.

But there’s something in that surveillance footage that has made Trump very concerned about leaks, more so than he was about the documents seized last August.

This indictment provides shocking new details about Nauta and De Oliveiras’ alleged efforts to comply with Trump’s orders to destroy surveillance footage.

But it does not yet explain how reported gaps ended up in the surveillance footage.

And it doesn’t yet explain what Trump was trying to hide — what was worse than video showing Nauta emptying out the storage closet and then only half-filling it before Evan Corcoran did a search.

Share this entry

Rudy’s Corrupted Devices

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

In a remarkable set of filings, Robert Costello — Rudy Giuliani’s defense attorney and a key player in the effort to package up a doctored laptop and pitch it as Hunter Biden’s — has provided an explanation for why his client wasn’t charged for doing the bidding of Russian-backed Ukrainians without registering as a foreign agent: Because many of the devices seized on April 28, 2021 were “corrupted” (his word).

Here are the filings:

  • Joe Sibley’s response to Ruby Freeman’s motion for sanctions
  • Robert Costello’s declaration purporting to describe the Special Master process in Rudy’s Ukraine influence-peddling case
  • A nolo contendere declaration from Rudy stipulating that he will not contest that he made the defamatory statements about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss or that the statements were false, but preserving his ability to argue the statements were opinion or otherwise protected speech

No contest that Rudy lied

The last of these, Rudy’s nolo contendere declaration, may be an attempt to put all these discovery disputes behind him by simply stipulating that the information he would have turned over had he complied with discovery would show that he made the defamatory claims about Freeman and Moss and there was no basis for them. His stipulation is limited to this case, so could not be used in an 18 USC 241 case against him.

Rudy is attempting to stop digging himself deeper in a hole.

Let’s see where we might go if we dig further, shall we?

Costello blames the government contractor for “corrupting” Rudy’s devices

Costello’s declaration claims that he encountered numerous technical problems with the data on the devices, and attributes those problems to the government’s vendor. Based on having blamed the government’s discovery vendor for any technical problems, he claims it is impossible for Rudy to have spoiled any of the materials on the phones.

In reviewing the materials, I encountered numerous non-user generated files and what I referred to as computer gibberish. In addition, there were many emails that contained the header with the sender and recipient addresses, but no text in the body of the email. With respect to this material, in September and October of 2021, I made inquiries of the Special Master’s electronic discovery people, and they informed me that this was exactly how they received the electronic materials. The Special Master’s lawyers informed me that they had made similar inquiries to the Government and the Government reported that any errors in the production of the electronic data, would have occurred when PAE, the Government vendor, performed their extraction procedure. I have attached some of the contemporaneous communications with the Special Master’s office in September and October of 2021. See Exhibit C attached.

As a result of that information, you can see that the allegations made by Mr. Gottlieb are false and not based upon any factual material. Mr. Giuliani has not spoliated any electronic evidence. What has been produced is what Mr. Giuliani received from the United States Government. Mr. Giuliani has never possessed the electronic materials since they were seized in April 2021. It was, and is, physically impossible for Mr. Giuliani to have spoliated any of this evidence as Mr. Gottlieb claims. [my emphasis]

Later, Costello outright claims that the government “had apparently corrupted some of the files as they were extracting the data,” and then wiped them.

There was no way for Mr. Giuliani or I, to know that the Government had apparently corrupted some of the files as they were extracting the data. Likewise, there was no way for Mr. Giuliani or I, to know, [sic] that when the devices were returned by the FBI, AFTER they concluded there would be no charges forthcoming, that the actual devices would be wiped clean. [my emphasis]

That, Costello claims, is proof that Rudy couldn’t have destroyed any electronic evidence.

In short, there is simply no factual basis for Mr. Gottlieb’s allegations of spoliation. It was physically impossible for Rudy Giuliani to do what Mr. Gottlieb swears to.

Except that’s not clear at all. That’s true because Costello’s own evidence doesn’t support his claim that the government attributed all of this to the vendor. That leaves the possibility that Rudy spoiled the evidence before SDNY seized his phones. If so, Costello’s claim that Rudy couldn’t have spoiled the evidence after Ruby Freeman’s lawsuit, in December 2021, is true, but it doesn’t rule out Rudy or someone else — perhaps his Russian spy friends — spoiling evidence before the search in April 2021, at which point he was already lawyered up for at least the Smartmatic suit.

Costello misrepresents review scope

Before I show that Costello’s own evidence about the evidentiary problems doesn’t support his claims, let me demonstrate something more basic.

Costello repeatedly claims (and Sibley repeats) that the government reviewed 26 years of electronic evidence. It’s true that there was evidence from 26 years on the devices. But as I’ve explained repeatedly, even the government asked to limit the scope of review to everything after January 1, 2018. And that’s what Judge Paul Oetken approved on September 16, 2021.

An email Costello included with his declaration — directing Rudy what to review next — shows that’s what the scope of the review was.

Costello may have a reason he wants to obscure the scope of the review, which I’ll return to. Or it may be that after discovering the “corruption” on Rudy’s phones, FBI’s technical experts had to look further, using a warrant that is not yet public. But at least given the public record, it is not an honest representation of what was reviewed, as distinct from what was extracted.

The corruption found on Rudy’s phones

Based on Costello’s evidence, there were five different problems found with Rudy’s devices:

  • The dates on emails adopted the date of extraction — July 2021 — as the last modified date
  • Some .jpg files could not be viewed
  • Emails from Rudy’s phone lacked the text of the email
  • There were unreadable files on the larger devices
  • The WhatsApp texts had gotten garbled

Costello includes some cherry-picked emails to substantiate those problems. I’ll put them in order.

The first identified problem was the last-modified date, which Costello wrote someone from Trustpoint to identify on September 15 and which I first noted days later. Costello does not mention whether or how that problem was fixed.

Then, Costello quoted from his own email sent on September 30, which described that everything on seven devices was non-readable non-user created.

The bottom line of which is that there is virtually No User Created Info on the first seven devices. The screen shots of data we observed was non- readable non user created data which is clearly non- responsive and so we shouldn’t raise any objections to it being turned over to the Government.

Additionally we are getting the Special Master to go to the Government and its vendor to see if they can eliminate all of the non- user created data from the 9 remaining devices to make our future work more manageable.

A response from the Special Master on October 1, 2021 describes the problems with those seven devices somewhat differently, this way:

  • .jpg files that cannot be viewed
  • missing email/text body issue
  • unreadable “computer files” on the larger devices

Those devices were reviewed for files through seizure, so they likely had contemporaneous records.

Then, an instruction email from the Special Master team, written on October 15, 2021 — regarding the iPhone from which the bulk of the files were turned over — suggests that on that phone only the missing email/text issue remained. This is one of the only communications that describes something the government represented. And at least per them, it’s not a matter of corruption, it’s a matter of how iPhones work.

It is our expectation that these documents can be reviewed quickly, given that many are very short, and others — as you’ve pointed out previously — contain no “body” text. We have asked the Government why many messages do not contain bodies, and their understanding is that this is the way the iPhone stores backup data.

Then, on October 21, 2021, Costello sent an email noting that the WhatsApp texts were muddled.

Trustpoint reports to us that within the field of approximately 25,000 data items there are approximately 7500 “WhatsApp” entries. The way the Government’s expert presented this evidence almost all the Whats App entries consist of garbled words in English. For example the phrase “In God we trust” would likely appear to us now as “God we trust in”.

[snip]

Frankly we do not know how to deal with this, and we wanted to alert you to his latest glitch which will be found on more than 25% of the items to be searched.

The Special Master responded the following week that they “hope to have a solution shortly.”

As noted above, the Special Master turned over virtually everything on that phone, so they found a way to deal with the WhatsApp issue.

Given the number of files found on the remaining 8 devices, may well have found the same problem on those devices as they did on the first seven.

In short, at least per the record Costello himself provides, he has no evidence the government attributed any of this to the vendor. Costello claimed that the government had told the Special Master that,

the government reported that any errors in the production of the electronic data, would have occurred when PAE, the Government vendor performed their extraction procedure.

But, unless I’m missing it, he provides no evidence of that.

It appears likely that 15 of 16 devices lacked substantive information, and the only thing he provides an explanation for is that some emails — emails that Rudy would have separate access to — weren’t downloaded onto a backup of his phone.

Costello spins on Rudy’s non-compliance on emails

According to Rudy’s own declaration, he helped Trump plot a coup attempt using three different emails, which other documents (including Costello’s own declaration!) reveal must be:

  • rudolphgiuliani at icloud
  • helen0528 at gmail
  • TruthandJustie4U at proton

Rudy’s own privilege log shows that he retained both the gmail and icloud emails — but for things after January 6 and before the seizure, which in the log are fairly presented as privileged.

Rudy’s own privilege log shows none of the protonmail accounts used, even though Bernie Kerik’s does (more on that later).

That’s why it’s so interesting that Costello attacks rather than addresses why Epshteyn (and Christina Bobb) had responsive records that Rudy didn’t turn over.

In paragraph 5 of Mr. Gottlieb’s affirmation, he states that they obtained a December 13, 2020 email from Defendant Giuliani to Boris Ephsteyn [sic] which ” reiterates Defendant’s false claims about Plaintiffs that: “Georgia has video evidence of 30,000 illegal ballots cast after the observers were removed.”” Note first, that the Plaintiffs in in this case were not mentioned, but further note, that when one reviews the citation for this email (ECF-56-7), there is a later email in that same exhibit from Jason Miller that reports: “Statement on hold until further notice, pending Rudy’s talk with the President.” In the spirit of lack of candor, Mr. Gottlieb failed to mention that email.

Here’s the email in question (which redacts which email it went to, but one Bobb turned over was sent to Rudy’s Gmail). But whichever one it came from, it’s an email that Rudy still had access to in 2021, as evidenced by the exhibits presented in this case.

There seems to be good cause to conclude Rudy deleted the email or refused to look for it.

Costello and Sibley’s exaggeration of the investigative closure

Again, 15 of 16 of these devices had some as yet unexplained data that was not user created. I don’t see where Costello substantiated that the government’s vendor did this. Short of doing that, he can’t rule out that Rudy — or, again, the Russian spies he was cozy with at the time — destroyed the data on the devices.

And that’s why I find it notable how Costello and Sibley misrepresent the nature of DOJ’s notice the grand jury investigation into Rudy’s Ukraine influence peddling had concluded.

At the same time as NY State was asking Barbara Jones to serve as the monitor over Trump Organization’s legal woes with the state, SDNY filed this letter, asking Judge Oetken to terminate the appointment of Jones.

The Government writes to notify the Court that the grand jury investigation that led to the issuance of the above-referenced warrants has concluded, and that based on information currently available to the Government, criminal charges are not forthcoming. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court terminate the appointment of the Special Master, the Hon. Barbara S. Jones.

As I noted at the time, Costello ran to the press and claimed this meant Rudy would not be charged.

But Costello never claimed to have received a declination letter. And contemporaneous reporting made clear the case remained open.

We now know why: Instead of whatever prosecutors expected to find on at least 7 of Rudy’s phone, they found non-user generated non-readable files. Maybe their vendor fucked up. Maybe something else happened to the devices. But there was nothing there for them to build their case on.

Which is why Costello’s spin on what happened is so interesting. He faults Ruby Freeman’s lawyer for not mentioning that Rudy wasn’t charged.

In his Affirmation, Mr. Gottlieb referenced a criminal investigation run by the SDNY involving Mr. Giuliani, but conveniently failed to mention that it was resolved in Mr. Giuliani’s favor.

[snip]

First, let me state that after the Government, be it the FBI or the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) reviewed 26 years’  worth of electronic data, the SDNY, [sic] issued an unusual public statement declaring that it was not charging Mr. Giuliani with any violation of federal law.

But he overstates the filing, which only addresses the grand jury in question. And the only reason the statement was unusual is that it wasn’t a declination letter sent to Costello himself.

Given the revelation that at least 7 and possibly as many as 15 of these devices were — to use Costello’s word — “corrupted,” it makes other details of the Rudy investigation more interesting, including a request, reported in April 2022, for help accessing other phones.

If the vendor didn’t “corrupt” the data on 15 of 16 of Rudy’s devices — and I don’t see where Costello shows they did — I can imagine that the SDNY might pursue how they got corrupted.

And that may be why Rudy is attempting to end any further review of why he can’t even find emails that Boris Epshteyn had access to.

Share this entry

Curious Plea Deals Afoot in Lancaster, PA

/14 Comments/in , , /by

The curious rumored plea deal of Lancaster, PA Jan6er Sam Lazar has a twin now in the curious plea deal of James Breheny.

Lazar, who is from Ephrata, PA, was arrested almost exactly two years ago on assault and civil disorder charges. But he was more notable for his moniker — FacePlantBlowhard — and his networking after the attack with politicians, including Doug Mastriano.

After an extended detention fight, nothing much happened in Lazar’s case. Then there was a year-long gap in the docket, followed by a notice of appearance of an AUSA who is handling some of the more important ongoing prosecutions.

Both Ryan Reilly and Lancaster Online’s Dan Nephin seem to have gotten tipped off to a sealed hearing on March 17 that was, reportedly, a plea hearing.

NBC News spotted Rebeca Lazar, Lazar’s sister who accompanied him to D.C. on Jan. 6, at the Washington D.C. federal courthouse, along with his family members. Lazar’s case was before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, according to the source. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But there’s still nothing on the docket.

James Breheny, who has ties to the Oath Keepers, was arrested even before Lazar, in May 2021. He was linked to the Oath Keepers by dint of being added to their comms the day of the attack and — more importantly — inviting Stewart Rhodes to a coordinating event in Quarryville, PA.

On December 21, 2020, BREHENY invited Rhodes to a leadership meeting of “multiple patriot groups” from the Mid-Atlantic states that was to take place in Quarryville, Pennsylvania on January 3, 2021. BREHENY forwarded Stewart Rhodes a message describing the purpose of the meeting, which was to prepare for a January 6 rally in Washington, DC. The message stated, “This will be the day we get our comms on point with multiple other patriot groups, share rally points etc. This one is important and I believe this is our last chance to organize before the show. This meeting will be for leaders only.” In inviting Rhodes to this meeting, BREHENY cautioned, “No cell phones. Need to be Faraday bag prior to site.”

Here’s Lancaster Online’s story on the meeting (which some participants disputed was focused exclusively on January 6):

On this particular Sunday afternoon – Jan. 3, 2021 – the topic was darker and much more urgent.

Members of so-called “patriot” and militia groups from across Pennsylvania and New Jersey strategized about how they would communicate with each other in the event of a major catastrophe. The failure of the electrical grid. An epic natural disaster. An armed clash with their own government.

Many in the room believed the collapse of American society was “inevitable,” that the American political process was broken.

Though Breheny was always treated as part of the Oath Keeper prosecution, he was never joined to one of the existing conspiracies. Instead, his case just kept getting continued every two months. Until, on June 6 — after almost all of the Oath Keepers were convicted and sentenced — Breheny pled guilty to one count of obstruction as part of a cooperation agreement.

There was no one obvious, at that point, to cooperate against.

And today, Judge Mehta set Breheny’s sentencing for February 23, not long after the other cooperating Oath Keepers, who’ll be sentenced in December and January.

There are a few other sleeper plea agreements I have watched. But these are nevertheless two of the most bewildering plea agreements of the twenty or so we’ve seen so far.

And both of them have a tie to the Lancaster, PA area.

Update: Added the piece on the January 3 meeting.

Share this entry