DOJ Says Inciting a Riot Is Not Part of the President’s Job Description

/69 Comments/in , /by

When Trump appealed Amit Mehta’s ruling that he could be sued for his role in setting off an attack on January 6, Trump said he had absolute immunity from being held accountable for his role in the attack.

The DC Circuit asked DOJ what they thought about that claim.

DOJ has now responded in an amicus filing. They argued that Mehta’s opinion — which held that it is plausible that Trump incited violence at the Capitol — would not cover stuff that is part of the President’s job description.

Here, the district court concluded that plaintiffs’ complaints plausibly allege that President Trump’s speech at the rally on January 6, 2021, precipitated the ensuing attack on the Capitol—and, in particular, that the complaints plausibly allege that the former President’s speech encouraged imminent private violent action and was likely to produce such action. The United States expresses no view on that conclusion, or on the truth of the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaints. But in the United States’ view, such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the Office of the President of the United States.

In this Court, President Trump has not challenged the district court’s conclusion—reiterated by plaintiffs on appeal—that the complaints plausibly allege that his speech instigated the attack on the Capitol. Instead, his briefs advance only a single, categorical argument: A President is always immune from any civil suits based on his “speech on matters of public concern,” Trump Br. 7—even if that speech also constitutes incitement to imminent private violence. The United States respectfully submits that the Court should reject that categorical argument.

The government specifically and repeatedly stated that they are not endorsing Mehta’s opinion. They also make it clear that they’re not stating a view about the criminal liability of anyone for January 6.

[T]he United States does not express any view regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events.

But they are saying that if Mehta’s opinion holds, then what his opinion covers (and he excluded Trump’s inaction as areas in which he might be immune) would not be covered by the President’s job description.

The United States here expresses no view on the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that President Trump’s January 6 speech incited the subsequent attack on the Capitol. But because actual incitement would be unprotected by absolute immunity even if it came in the context of a speech on matters of public concern, this Court should reject the categorical argument President Trump pressed below and renews on appeal. Resolving the appeal on that narrow basis would allow the Court to avoid comprehensively defining the scope of the President’s immunity for speech to the public—including when and how to draw a line between a President’s speech in his presidential capacity and speech in his capacity as a candidate for office.

Of note for Scott Perry: In the midst of a passage that explains that a President’s natural incumbency position must render some reelection speech Presidential, it also notes that that’s not true for Members of Congress, because House ethics rules exclude campaign activity from a Member of Congress’ job description.

For those reasons, and because of differences in the applicable legal standards, the outer perimeter of the President’s Office differs from the scope of a Member of Congress’s employment for purposes of the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679. Cf. U.S. Resp. to Mo Brooks’s Westfall Act Pet. at 8-19, Swalwell v. Trump, No. 21-cv-586 (July 27, 2021), Dkt. No. 33 (explaining that Representative Brooks’s speech at the January 6 rally was outside the scope of his employment because House ethics rules and agency-law principles establish that campaign activity is not within a Representative’s employment).

So Members of Congress can’t campaign as part of their jobs. Presidents can. But they cannot — whether to stay in office or for some other reason — incite private actors to engage in violence.

Update: As I laid out here, DOJ may be laying the groundwork for proving aid and abet liability for both Trump and Rudy Giuliani in the near-murder of Michael Fanone. Those exhibits are being presented in the bench trial, before Amy Berman Jackson, of Ed Badalian.

Did Steven D’Antuono Make It Easier for Trump to Steal 47 Classified Documents?

/113 Comments/in , /by

There are two things that are not mentioned in this long explanation of how the FBI refused, for months, to treat Donald Trump like anyone else suspected of hoarding highly classified information.

First, WaPo doesn’t mention that Trump got an injunction that lasted from shortly after the search, September 5, until December 12, over three weeks after Jack Smith was appointed.

Because the WaPo doesn’t mention that fact — doesn’t mention that DOJ was prevented from using classified evidence to investigate Trump’s crimes for several weeks in September, doesn’t mention that DOJ was prevented from using unclassified evidence to investigate Trump’s crimes for 98 days — WaPo envisions any damage FBI did by resisting taking investigative steps against Trump as a shortening of the time when DOJ could charge Trump.

Some inside the probe argued the infighting delayed the search by months, ultimately reducing the time prosecutors had to reach a decision on possible charges. Others contend the discussions were necessary to ensure the investigation proceeded on the surest footing, enabling officials to gather more evidence before they executed the search, people familiar with the dynamics said.

In November, before prosecutors had finished their work and decided whether to charge Trump or anyone else, he announced his campaign to retake the White House in 2024, leading Garland to appoint a special counsel, Jack Smith, to complete the investigation.

[snip]

Meanwhile, in late October, amid news reports that Trump was looking to soon announce another bid for the presidency, Garland told aides he was seriously contemplating appointing a special counsel to take over the investigation, as well as a separate criminal probe looking at Trump and his allies’ effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election — a rare procedure designed to ensure public faith in fair investigations.

On Nov. 15, Trump took the stage in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom — at the same property where FBI agents had searched three months earlier — and announced that he would run for president again in 2024. The Justice Department’s national security division leaders who had pushed the FBI to be more aggressive pursuing Trump did not finish the investigation or reach a charging decision before a new chief took over.

On Nov. 18, Garland sent word to the prosecutors working on both of the probes to come to Justice Department headquarters for a meeting that morning. He wanted to privately inform them that he planned later that day to appoint a special counsel. Garland told them they could choose their next steps, but he hoped they would join the special counsel’s team for the good of the two investigations, people familiar with the conversation said.

Even that risk assumes Trump’s announcement was determined by anything other than making it harder for DOJ to charge him; he was discussing announcing his run still earlier, before he got the injunction. But the risk ignores the opportunity that FBI’s delay provided Trump and others last summer.

The other thing WaPo doesn’t mention is the real damage the FBI, led by the now-retired head of the Washington Field Office, Steven D’Antuono, may have done by stalling: FBI may have made it impossible to recover all the documents Trump took.

Well before the injunction on using unclassified documents in the investigation was lifted, multiple outlets revealed that DOJ suspected Trump still had classified documents. Trump’s lawyers have paid investigators to search some — but not all — of Trump’s properties since. And for months, Trump’s lawyers publicly lied about the results, publicly lied to hide that an aide moved new documents with classification marks to Mar-a-Lago after the August 8 search by the FBI.

There are still 47 empty classified document folders, found in two different searches of Trump’s property, that remain unexplained.

Perhaps those folders were not yet empty in May 2022, when DOJ first proposed doing a surprise search of Mar-a-Lago.

But FBI agents viewed a Mar-a-Lago search in May as premature and combative, especially given that it involved raiding the home of a former president. That spring, top officials at FBI headquarters met with prosecutors to review the strength of evidence that could be used to justify a surprise search, according to two people familiar with their work.

Perhaps those folders were not yet empty in June 2022, after Evan Corcoran raised more suspicions on June 3, when Jay Bratt came to pick up a folder of classified documents, the same day that Trump departed for Bedminster.

Perhaps those folders were not yet empty when DOJ served another subpoena to obtain the surveillance footage showing Walt Nauta moving boxes to evade the search.

Some FBI field agents then argued to prosecutors that they were inclined to believe Trump and his team had delivered everything the government sought to protect and said the bureau should close down its criminal investigation, according to some people familiar with the discussions.

But they said national security prosecutors pushed back and instead urged FBI agents to gather more evidence by conducting follow-up interviews with witnesses and obtaining Mar-a-Lago surveillance video from the Trump Organization.

The government sought surveillance video footage by subpoena in late June. It showed someone moving boxes from the area where records had been stored, not long after Trump was put on notice to return all such records, according to people familiar with the probe.

Perhaps those folders were not yet empty when D’Antuono — who was appointed head of the DC field office in October 2020 and who retired last November; his replacement was named in late December — continued to stall shortly before the search.

Against that backdrop, Bratt and other senior national security prosecutors, including Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen and George Toscas, a top counterintelligence official, met about a week before the Aug. 8 raid with FBI agents on their turf, inside an FBI conference room.

The prosecutors brought with them a draft search warrant and argued that the FBI had no other choice but to search Mar-a-Lago as soon as practically possible, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. Prosecutors said the search was the only safe way to recover an untold number of sensitive government records that witnesses had said were still on the property.

Steven M. D’Antuono, then the head of the FBI Washington field office, which was running the investigation, was adamant the FBI should not do a surprise search, according to the people.

D’Antuono said he would agree to lead such a raid only if he were ordered to, according to two of the people. The two other people said D’Antuono did not refuse to do the search but argued that it should be a consensual search agreed to by Trump’s legal team.

We have no reason to believe that DOJ got all the documents back and plenty of reason to believe it didn’t. Trump’s lawyers are still dicking around, offering ridiculous explanations for why a new empty folder showed up sometime between August and December.

What we do know is that Steven D’Antuono treated Trump differently than FBI would have treated any other person suspected of stealing classified documents, he treated Trump differently because he had been trained to understand that Trump could ruin his career if he dared investigate Trump.

And by treating Trump differently, D’Antuono may have given Trump the opportunity to steal another 47 documents.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Admits Kevin McCarthy Should Have Considered National Security before Harming It

/41 Comments/in , /by

CNN reports that in a GOP leadership meeting, concerns were (anonymously) expressed about the way that Kevin McCarthy gave exclusive access to sensitive security footage from the Capitol to a self-described fan of Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlson.

[S]ome lawmakers in the closed-door leadership meeting asked whether sensitive security protocols or certain evacuation routes would be exposed by taking that step.

Others questioned how long the footage is going to be dragged out in the press, with some lawmakers concerned about the optics of appearing to try to downplay a deadly insurrection in the US Capitol.

“Let’s just rip the Band-aid off and get this over with,” one GOP lawmaker told CNN.

Sources said McCarthy assured his leadership team that he wants to move swiftly, but said they need to be deliberate about how they handle it to ensure the release does not endanger their security.

Remarkably, it was Marjorie Taylor Greene who had to voice, on the record, the potential danger of showing where the secure back hallways of the Capitol were.

[Marge] told CNN she played a role in McCarthy’s decision to turn the footage over to Carlson, but she wouldn’t go into further detail.

Greene, who was not in the Monday night meeting, said she’s spoken with McCarthy, and that the speaker’s office is coordinating a process for how to release the footage more widely, beyond Fox News, while also ensuring it doesn’t violate any security concerns.

“We can’t give away our national security,” Greene said, “Everyone in Congress agrees. And I think the American people agree. We don’t want Russia or China or any of these other countries being able to study all the entries and exits of our capital. That’s foolish.”

Greene told CNN that Carlson’s team was also given certain parameters for what they could and couldn’t air. “Yes … of course (there were parameters) they’re being extremely careful and responsible.”

Except no one cited in this article — not Marge, not Elise Stefanik (who showed less understanding about the security concerns than Marge), and not CNN itself — raised the problem here.

Kevin McCarthy has already shared this sensitive video with someone that — as a Gang of Eight member — he must know was in discussions about setting up a back channel with Putin, purportedly a long-term effort to set up an interview. Tucker’s own FOIA suggests that effort extended for at least thirty months, as of July 2021. Tucker continues to proudly root for Putin.

The problem is not, just, in Tucker airing surveillance footage that compromises the security of the Capitol. It’s not just that Russian spies might watch Tucker Carlson and decide how to attack the Capitol.

The problem is also that Tucker will either give it to Putin, or store it insecurely and make it available to Russian hackers, a means of obtaining sensitive records that Russia has used in the past.

One of the first things Kevin McCarthy did as Speaker was to give exclusive access to security information to someone openly rooting for Putin, someone who has launched hostile operations against US democracy in recent years.

And McCarthy is only now considering the security implications of having done so.

BREAKING from Fox News: Trump Cheated … and He Still Couldn’t Beat Joe Biden

/87 Comments/in , /by

Rupert Murdoch, in a sworn deposition as part of Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox, confessed that he helped Donald Trump cheat during the 2020 election. He provided Jared Kushner confidential information about Joe Biden’s ads, the kind of information that Trump had to rely on Russian spies to obtain from Hillary in 2016.

During Trump’s campaign, Rupert provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor,Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy. Ex.600, R.Murdoch 210:6-9; 213:17-20; Ex.603 (providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public).

On January 5, Rupert and Suzanne Scott talked about having their top opinion shows, in concert, admit the truth: The election is over. Joe Biden won. The claim that the election was stolen was nothing but a Trump myth.

On January 5, Rupert and Scott discussed whether Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham should say some version of “The election is over and Joe Biden won.” Ex.277. He hoped those words “would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen. Id;Ex.600, R.Murdoch 258:5-14.

But Scott didn’t want to do that publicly, because she wanted to avoid pissing off viewers.

Scott told Rupert that privately they are all there but we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers . Ex.277. So nobody made a statement.

The next day, her pissed off viewers attacked the Capitol.

And all the while, while Fox News assisted Trump’s efforts to weaponize a mass of angry Fox and InfoWars viewers, Rupert Murdoch knew that he had — personally! — helped Trump cheat and it still wasn’t enough for Trump to beat Joe Biden.

Again, I highly encourage you to take the time to read this. It’s another devastating indictment of the propaganda network run by Rupert.

Because, ultimately, when Rupert is forced to answer questions under oath, it becomes clear the extent to which Fox was covering up what a loser (Rupert knows that) Trump is.

How Holes in Ivanka’s Testimony Could Help Make an Obstruction Case against Her Father

/31 Comments/in , /by

When Ivanka Trump was first invited to testify to the January 6 Committee, at least as she tells it, her father encouraged her to testify.

I-after the letter was made public inviting me to attend, I was actually traveling with my children at the time. So I was I was not — I was not in Florida. But I remember him saying something in a subsequent conversation to the effect of, “Great, you should do it,” or something something like that. It was sort of very casual.

Because I told him immediately upon receiving it, I indicated my willingness to participate in these hearings and be as forthright as possible, and he didn’t discourage that in any way.

Her testimony was pretty helpful to him. She had no recall of most damning details of his role in a coup attempt (the record shows that, with the exception of a speech in Georgia on January 4, of which she also claimed to have no recall, Ivanka wasn’t closely involved in the Big Lie). She claimed to “perceive” that he was shocked about the attack on the Capitol, though she could provide no explanation for why she concluded that. And she affirmatively claimed that his failure to respond to the attack on the Capitol was instead a strong response.

Any testimony Ivanka gives to a grand jury in response to a recent subpoena may be less helpful, because in the interim, J6C and — undoubtedly — Jack Smith’s team have developed far more evidence that Donald Trump affirmatively refused to ask rioters to leave the Capitol during the height of the attack, something that would meet a key element of the offense for obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct the vote certification charges.

Per the J6C Report, the process of trying to get Trump to give a statement started before the first breach of the Capitol, by 1:57PM, according to the timing of a call Eric Herschmann placed to Jared.

And I got a call, I think it was from Herschmann, basically saying like, you know, this is getting pretty ugly, people are trying to break into the Capitol, you know, we’re going to, you know — and I said, you know, basically saying — I think he started by saying, “Where are you?”

And I said, “I’m on an airplane.”

And he said, “Okay, we’ve got to deal with this here. People are trying to break into the Capitol. We’re going to see what we can do here. We’re going to try to get the President to put out a statement.”

After the initial breach at 2:13 PM, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, Pat Cipollone pushed Mark Meadows to barge into the dining room and do something to stop the attack.

No more than a minute, minute and a half later, I see Pat Cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office; and rush right in, looked at me, said, is Mark in his office? And I said, yes. He just looked at me and started shaking his head and went over — opened Mark’s office door, stood there with the door propped open and said something to — Mark is still sitting on his phone.

I remember like glancing and he’s still sitting on his phone. And I remember Pat saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the Capitol, Mark. We need to go down and see the President now. And Mark looked up at him and said, he doesn’t want to do anything, Pat. And Pat said something to the effect of — and very clearly had said this to Mark — something to the effect of, Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your f’ing hands.

This is getting out of control. I’m going down there.

But that may have made things worse. Ten minutes later, at 2:24PM, Trump tweeted out his attack on Mike Pence, then attempted to call Tommy Tuberville, effectively ignoring the pleading of his aides and focusing instead on trying to organize objections to the vote.

Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!

While the timeline is uncertain, seemingly after this tweet, Eric Herschmann was involved in two separate efforts to get Trump to call on rioters to leave.

One effort pertained to the contested note — a contest the stakes of which are more clear given Ivanka’s testimony.

As I laid out here, at a time when he believed (having been told as much from Hutchinson’s then-attorney Stefan Passantino) that Hutchinson had completed her testimony with J6C without mentioning this note, Herschmann claimed to remember one thing above all about his interactions with the President that day: that he wrote this note.

In later testimony, Hutchinson said she wrote it, on Meadows’ order.

The difference is subtle. As Hutchinson tells it, Meadows referred to the rioters being present at the Capitol “illegally,” but Herschmann offered “without proper authorization,” to give Trump something more palatable to adopt. Some time later, after Meadows came back from the dining room with the card, the “illegally” language had been crossed out entirely, but with Trump failing to act on either action.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: The chief of staff was in a meeting with Eric Hirschman and potentially Mr. Philbin, and they had rushed out of the office fairly quickly. Mark had handed me the note card with one of his pens, and sort of dictating a statement for the president to potentially put out.

LIZ CHENEY: And — no, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s Ok. There are two phrases on there, one illegal and then one without proper authority. The illegal phrase was the one that Mr. Meadows had dictated to me. Mr. Herschmann had chimed in and said also put without legal authority. There should have been a slash between the two phrases. It was an — an or if the president had opted to put one of those statements out. Evidently he didn’t. Later that afternoon, Mark came back from the Oval Dining Room and put the palm card on my desk with illegally crossed out, but said we didn’t need to take further action on that statement.

But it didn’t work. Herschmann concedes that the effort to get Trump to send out the message on the card — “anyone who entered the Capitold illegally without proper authority should leave immediately” — failed. Trump wouldn’t ask rioters to leave the building for at least another hour.

Q So I’m more interested, though, in the “should leave immediately” point which the President didn’t say in his ensuing tweets. Did anybody push back on your suggestion that the President should say that the people who entered the Capitol should leave immediately?

A No, nobody pushed back on that.

Q Do you have any idea why the statement didn’t go out?

A Why what I wrote didn’t go out.

Q Yes?

A I don’t. I mean, he decided not to issue this statement and issued one when lvanka went back there.

Q Okay. Do you know who made the decision not to issue this statement?

A I do not. I don’t think there was an issue of an idea that someone would be saying you shouldn’t leave immediately. I think it was presumed that that was the point of a statement, of any statement, was, no violence, leave the Capitol. But I don’t remember a discussion about that topic individually or particularly.

Before Hutchinson gave her later testimony, Herschmann managed to flush the discussion with Trump about asking rioters to leave down a black hole of his failed memory. With it, though, she changes his own involvement, from taking the lead on the note, to trying to find a palatable statement for Trump to make.

Given the reference to “Ivanka went back there,” his second effort seems to have followed the effort with the card. Herschmann ran to Ivanka’s office and got her to ask Trump to make a statement.

Ivanka’s testimony, given weeks before that of two of her staffers, Rachel Craddock and Julie Radford, was that the first she heard of the violence at the Capitol was when Herschmann burst into her office.

But Radford testified that, after her own spouse texted her to ask if she was alright, she went into Ivanka’s office, turned on the TV, checked Twitter. Then they called in Craddock and they all started drafting Ivanka’s own tweet to call for peace, one she would eventually send out and then delete after catching heat for referring to the attackers as “Patriots.”

That’s when, per the staffers, Herschmann came in to get her.

The difference, of course, is not just whether Ivanka knew of the violence at the Capitol, but whether she knew her father had already targeted Pence. Ivanka claimed not to know what even Trump knew when she went into the dining room, even dodging a question about whether (!!!) he had the TV on.

Q Do you know whether or not he was aware of the violence that you had seen on your television when you first arrived in the dining room?

A I don’t know when he learned of the violence. I believe that he was aware of it because he immediately started the process of crafting a statement, and I don’t recall me bringing him up to speed.

Like I think he generally was aware when I entered. I don’t know when, though, he became aware, and I don’t know we didn’t have a specific conversation about what he knew or didn’t know.

I felt it was incredibly important that he issue a strong statement. Twitter was an obvious place for him to do tt because it was authentic to his voice, He would often a tweet. And it was fast.

So — but I don’t recall who said it should — if there was a discussion about Twitter versus not. I just recall the discussion of the statement itself

In her testimony, Ivanka gave Trump credit for the language used in the tweet.

Q Do you remember the President proposing any specific language, any particular words?

A I think it was all largely his language. I remember at the end we said, you know, in addition to the condemnation of violence and the need to respect law enforcement, I remember there was a discussion about adding the words “be peaceful” that I believe he suggested — he suggested or I suggested. You know, it was part of a discussion.

But I think the content was not in debate while I was present.

But Kayleigh McEnany told J6C that that language came from Ivanka, not Trump. And Sarah Matthews passed on, second-hand, that Kayleigh had described a dispute about even this lukewarm language.

[S]he said that he did not want to put that in and that they went through different phrasing of that, of the mention of peace, in order to get him to agree to include 2 it, and that it was Ivanka Trump who came up with “stay peaceful” and that he agreed to that phrasing to include in the tweet, but he was initially resistant to mentioning peace of any sort.

Most importantly, though, the second effort, too, failed to convince Trump to ask his rioters to leave the Capitol.

When committee personnel asked Ivanka why the tweet didn’t ask rioters to leave and didn’t ask them to condemn violence, she bullshitted, and claimed those ideas were incorporated in the tweet.

Now, the statement doesn’t ask people to leave the Capitol. It actually uses the word “stay,” “stay peaceful.” Do you remember any discussion about whether the tweet should directly encourage people to leave or disperse?

A Well, definitely the intention of “stay peaceful” was not to tell people to remain. It was to – for anyone who was not being peaceful should stop, and anyone who was, don’t get involved.

Q Uh-huh. The tweet also says nothing about violence, doesn’t condemn violence or reference violence. It just calls on people to support law enforcement because they’re truly on the side of the country and stay peaceful.

Do you remember any discussions about more explicitly condemning violence?

A That was the intention. And I believe that a subsequent tweet shortly there after did that. I think the immediate urgency was to try to deescalate the situation–

Q Uh-huh

A – as effectively as possible. So think everyone believed this would be an effective way to do it.

As far as is publicly known, Ivanka is at no risk of charges for obstructing the vote count. Her intention does not matter. Her father’s does. And her statement that the goal was to get people to leave but that Trump, for a second time within an hour, refused to make that ask says a great deal about Trump’s approval of the bodies preventing the certification of the vote count by violently remaining in the Capitol.

This is the kind of ratification of the mobsters obstruction that Amit Mehta talked about when letting a lawsuit against Trump proceed, only with far more detail that Trump affirmatively refused to do anything, not even when his daughter implored him.

Even ignoring the greater tools DOJ will have to clarify both the timing of these two efforts and the contacts involving others — most notably, Kevin McCarthy, who called several of the key players during this time period — interspersed with them, it would be harder for Ivanka to deny remembering this. Four witnesses friendly to Ivanka — Craddock and Radford, Matthews and Kayleigh — have challenged key parts of Ivanka’s earlier testimony. Whatever success Trump would one day have at discrediting Hutchinson’s testimony, it has been backed by multiple other witnesses (and Kayleigh’s testimony that Ivanka, not her dad, wrote the tweet is backed by the former press secretary’s own notes).

Plus, Ivanka would be reckless to assume no one else’s testimony has changed or expanded, particularly given that the two Pats — Cipollone and Philbin — testified under an Executive Privilege waiver last year.

The most important change, however, is the uncertain fallout of suspicions that Hutchinson’s former attorney was trying to limit her testimony in order to protect Herschmann.

Aside from Herschmann’s silence as Trump gave Mike Pence an order to violate the Constitution, there’s nothing independent of attempts to coach Hutchinson’s testimony and involvement in the financial aftermath of the election that give him any legal exposure. A slew of witnesses testified that he made sustained attempts to get Trump to call off his mob. But Passantino’s alleged efforts to alert Herschmann to Hutchinson’s testimony, and Herschmann’s 30-minute phone call to her afterwards, means Herschmann’s forgetfulness about his interactions with Trump on January 6 may evolve as well. One way or another, Hutchinson’s split from Passantino gives Smith one more tool to use to obtain testimony.

At least last year, Jared, Ivanka, her staffers, and Herschman, as well as Alex Cannon and two of Trump’s other gatekeepers were all represented by the same attorney from Kasowitz (one, Molly Michael, has been sucked into the stolen document case).

Ivanka’s grand jury testimony may do little more than lock her into her past testimony to the J6C. But it’s possible either her testimony or Herschmann’s before Smith’s grand jury will be more forthcoming.

Between Herschmann and Ivanka, there are several other conversations from January 6 they disclaimed remembering before J6C: Herschmann called Ivanka just before 10AM on January 6. The two spoke after Ivanka left the Oval Office meeting from which Trump called Pence, directly before both changed plans and went to the rally. Ivanka spoke to her father just before he started speaking at the Ellipse rally, followed, separately, by Herschmann. Anything Herschmann and Trump said to each other as Herschmann oversaw the filming of Trump’s videotaped response. The substance of the five minute call Herschmann had with Trump at 10:50PM on January 6. All of that may well remain unrecalled, to say nothing of Ivanka’s wildly incredible claim that she and Jared never spoke about January 6 afterwards.

But the testimony of all these people put together may well provide Smith enough to prove that Trump affirmatively refused to ask his supporters to leave after he attacked Mike Pence at 2:24PM. And that may be a big factor in whether Smith charges Trump with obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct the vote certification.

Related interview dates

February 23: Cassidy Hutchinson interview (Passantino)

March 7: Cassidy Hutchinson interview (Passantino)

March 31: Jared Kushner interview (Benson)

April 4: Ivanka interview (Benson)

April 6: Eric Herschmann interview (Benson)

May 17: Cassidy Hutchinson interview (Passantino)

May 24, 2:06 to 2:45PM: Rachel Craddock interview (Benson)

May 24, 3:01 to 4:15PM: Julie Radford interview (Benson)

June 28: Cassidy Hutchinson testimony (Hunt)

September 14: Cassidy Hutchinson interview (Hunt)

September 15: Cassidy Hutchinson interview (Hunt)

Trump’s “Receptionist of the US” Deletes Her Trip to Russia

/101 Comments/in , , /by

When Chamberlain Harris’s name first started getting bandied about as the woman in whose possession additional documents with classified markings were found last year at Mar-a-Lago, her LinkedIn bio described how, in addition to a trip to Spain in summer 2018, she also made a trip to St. Petersburg in Summer 2019, immediately before she took an internship at the White House.

Since then — perhaps today, after the Guardian published a follow-up on the story of those classified documents — the reference to Russia was removed.

In its first story on the documents, Guardian described that Molly Michael, then Trump’s Executive Assistant, ordered the woman in question to make a digital copy of the documents.

Then, at Mar-a-Lago in December, the contractors found a box that mainly contained presidential schedules, in which they found a couple of classified-marked documents to also be present and alerted the legal team to return the materials to the justice department, the sources said.

The exact nature of the classified-marked documents remains unclear, but a person with knowledge of the search likened their sensitivity to schedules for presidential movements – for instance, presidential travel to Afghanistan – that are considered sensitive until they have taken place.

After the Trump legal team turned over the box of schedules, the sources said, they learned that a junior Trump aide – employed by Trump’s Save America political action committee who acted as an assistant in Trump’s political “45 Office” – last year scanned and uploaded the contents of the box to a laptop.

The junior Trump aide, according to what one of the sources said, was apparently instructed to upload the documents by top Trump aide Molly Michael to create a repository of what Trump was doing while in office and was apparently careless in scanning them on to her work laptop.

Today’s update, in addition to identifying the woman as ROTUS — a made-up title that Harris has not yet deleted from her LinkedIn bio — described that the aide in question first had the box at a bungalow at Mar-a-Lago, then brought it to an off-site office, then brought it with her to occupy the desk that Molly Michael once had (in which at least two classified documents likely were found during the August 2022 search).

Known internally as ROTUS, short for Receptionist of the United States, the junior aide initially kept the box at a converted guest bungalow at Mar-a-Lago called the “tennis cottage” after Trump left office, and she soon took it with her to a government-leased office in the Palm Beach area.

The box remained at the government-leased office from where the junior aide worked through most of 2022, explaining why neither Trump’s lawyer who searched Mar-a-Lago in June for any classified-marked papers nor the FBI agents who searched the property in August found the documents.

Around the time that Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago from his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey at the end of the summer, the junior aide was told that she was being relocated to a desk in the anteroom of Trump’s own office at Mar-a-Lago that was previously assigned to top aide Molly Michael.

The junior aide retrieved her work belongings – including the box – from the government-leased office and took them to her new Mar-a-Lago workspace around September. At that time, the justice department’s criminal investigation into Trump’s retention of national security documents was intensifying.

[snip]

But the justice department was not satisfied, and it pressed the Trump legal team to get the contractors to conduct the third known search of Mar-a-Lago in early December – at which point the contractors discovered the box of presidential schedules, some with classified markings.

The Trump legal team alerted the FBI, which sent federal agents down to collect the box and its contents the following day.

A few weeks later, Trump’s lawyers started exploring whether they could get a better understanding of the sensitivity of the small number of schedules marked as classified, for the junior aide had kept sole custody of the box throughout that period.

It was at that point that the junior aide revealed for the first time that she could find out exactly what they were, because Michael – who left the Trump political team at the end of the summer – had told her to scan all of the schedules to her laptop.

Trump’s people are trying to shift the blame to her — but the documents were in Trump’s possession when he was subpoenaed last summer, so the failure to find them still arises from Trump’s failure to do a thorough search of the offices he controlled.

And this woman — whom Trump tried to forestall being subpoenaed in the laptop handover — just gave the FBI reason to look a whole lot more closely at her.

Update: Some have mentioned the report that this got uploaded to the cloud. That’s from this CNN report.

Maggie Haberman’s Foray into Campaign Finance Journalism

/74 Comments/in , , /by

I started unpacking this Maggie Haberman story yesterday morning.

It was an unusual story. Love or hate Maggie, she’s a really hard working journalist. But her forté is working phones, not documents.

Nevertheless, Maggie set out alone, without the involvement of an expert on documents generally or the FEC specifically (someone like David Fahrenthold) to explain why Jack Smith’s prosecutors are subpoenaing vendors of Trump’s Save America PAC.

The Justice Department has been subpoenaing documents from vendors paid by the PAC, including law firms, in an effort to determine what they were being paid for.

It seemed to be a follow-up to this story, which, by suggesting that JP Cooney had only joined the team with Smith’s hiring, falsely implied that DOJ had only started pursuing this angle after his appointment.

Three of his first hires — J.P. Cooney, Raymond Hulser and David Harbach — were trusted colleagues during Mr. Smith’s earlier stints in the department. Thomas P. Windom, a former federal prosecutor in Maryland who had been tapped in late 2021 by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s aides to oversee major elements of the Jan. 6 inquiry, remains part of the leadership team, according to several people familiar with the situation.

In addition to the documents and Jan. 6 investigations, Mr. Smith appears to be pursuing an offshoot of the Jan. 6 case, examining Save America, a pro-Trump political action committee, through which Mr. Trump raised millions of dollars with his false claims of election fraud. That investigation includes looking into how and why the committee’s vendors were paid.

In December, CNN reported that Cooney had been following the money for a year by that point, and even the NYT noted overt signs of that prong in September.

That earlier story nodded towards the same thing that this Daily Beast story, the January 6 Committee Report appendix on following the money, and this Campaign Legal Center complaint (the latter, focused on the 2020 campaign) did: Trump has apparently been treating campaign fundraising like a money laundering vehicle.

Go figure.

But Maggie, writing on her own, focuses instead on prospective crimes: the possibility that continuing to pay legal bills out of money raised starting in 2020 would be a different campaign finance violation.

Some of the $16 million appears to have been for lawyers representing witnesses in investigations related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power. But the majority of it — about $10 million — went to firms directly representing Mr. Trump in a string of investigations and lawsuits, including some related to his company, the filings showed.

Back in November, CLC did a report noting that Trump was doing that more generally, not just with lawyers.

All that’s not actually why I was interested in the story, but if you want an accounting of how much PAC money Trump is spending on legal services, Daily Beast’s tally includes the money spent by the MAGA PAC as well, adding up to $29.1 million since leaving office.

After I started unpacking Maggie’s story, I got distracted with the possibility that DOJ will tie Trump and Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman directly to the almost-murder of Michael Fanone. So, in the interim, Maggie broke the news that Smith’s prosecutors had subpoenaed Jared and Ivanka.

That story, written with Mike Schmidt, is exceptional only for the fact that they managed to avoid most of the hype about “aggressive steps” that peppers most reporting on Jack Smith. It pointed to things like the morning Oval Office meeting (Ivanka’s response to which her Chief of Staff Julie Radford was likely already questioned about, since — as the J6C Report noted explicitly — Radford was far more candid about it than Ivanka) and efforts to get Trump to call off his mob as likely topics of questioning.

Smith no doubt wants to get Jared and Ivanka’s stories about such topics locked in. Given questions about their candor before J6C, too, Smith will likely also give them an opportunity to revise their prior answers so they more closely match known facts.

Back to Maggie’s solo endeavor to read FEC filings.

There are two reasons I was interested in the story. First, having looked at FEC filings, Maggie seems to have discovered that the $195,000 in services that Boris Epshteyn billed to Save America PAC last year were not for legal services, but instead strategic consulting.

Another $1.3 million went to Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White, the firm of Evan Corcoran, a lawyer who began working with Mr. Trump last spring. Mr. Corcoran was brought into Mr. Trump’s orbit by Boris Epshteyn, a strategist who has played a coordinating role with some of the lawyers in cases involving Mr. Trump, as the investigation related to the Mar-a-Lago documents was heating up. (Mr. Epshteyn’s company was paid $195,000, but for broader strategic consulting, not legal consulting specifically.)

This is an important point, but one Maggie did not highlight (nor issue corrections on past stories). For the entirety of the time that Epshteyn was quarterbacking Trump’s response to the stolen documents probe, someone in his immediate vicinity has been telling reporters that he was playing a legal function, all the while billing Trump for the same old strategic consulting his firm, Georgetown Advisory, normally provides (though the two payments the campaign made to Epshteyn after Trump formalized his candidacy, totalling $30,000, were filed under “communications and legal consulting”).

NYT has, in various stories including Maggie in the byline, described Epshteyn’s role in the stolen documents case as “an in-house counsel who helps coordinate Mr. Trump’s legal efforts,” “in-house counsel for the former president who has become one of his most trusted advisers,” and “who has played a central role in coordinating lawyers on several of the investigations involving Mr. Trump.” Another even describes that Epshteyn “act[ed] as [a] lawyer [] for the Trump campaign.” The other day, Maggie described his role instead as “broader strategic consulting.”

All the time that NYT was describing Epshteyn as playing a legal role — and NYT is in no way alone in this — he was telling the Feds he wasn’t playing a legal function, he was instead playing a strategic consulting one. Many if not most of these stories also post-date the time, in September, when the FBI seized Epshteyn’s phone, which would give him a really good reason to try to claim to be a lawyer and not a political consultant.

DOJ is more likely to take FEC’s word on this issue than claims Epshteyn made to the press after his phone seizure.

Like I said, virtually every media outlet seems to be repeating the claim that Epshteyn has been playing a legal, not political role. But there’s one Maggie story, in particular, where the question of Epshteyn’s role is central: This story, quoting Eric Herschmann calling Epshteyn (and Evan Corcoran) idiots, a habit that made Herschmann a star witness for the January 6 Committee. Herschmann’s glee about calling Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and now Epshteyn and Corcoran idiots always distracted from sketchier aspects of Herschmann’s behavior, such as Keith Kellogg’s puzzlement about why a lawyer sat in the Oval Office while Trump ordered Mike Pence to break the law and said nothing.

Anyway, this Maggie story focusing on Epshteyn’s role not only called him an idiot, but also insinuated he was witness tampering.

To the extent anyone is regarded as a quarterback of the documents and Jan. 6-related legal teams, it is Boris Epshteyn, a former campaign adviser and a graduate of the Georgetown University law school. Some aides tried to block his calls to Mr. Trump in 2020, according to former White House officials, but Mr. Epshteyn now works as an in-house counsel to Mr. Trump and speaks with him several times a day.

Mr. Epshteyn played a key role coordinating efforts by a group of lawyers for and political allies of Mr. Trump immediately after the 2020 election to prevent Joseph R. Biden Jr. from becoming president. Because of that role, he has been asked to testify in the state investigation in Georgia into the efforts to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory there.

Mr. Epshteyn’s phone was seized by the F.B.I. last week as part of the broad federal criminal inquiry into the attempts to overturn the election results and the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

[snip]

In his emails to Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Rowley, Mr. Herschmann — a prominent witness for the House select committee on Jan. 6 and what led to it — invoked Mr. Corcoran’s defense of Mr. Bannon and argued pointedly that case law about executive privilege did not reflect what Mr. Corcoran believed it did.

Mr. Herschmann made clear in the emails that absent a court order precluding a witness from answering questions on the basis of executive privilege, which he had repeatedly implored them to seek, he would be forced to testify.

“I certainly am not relying on any legal analysis from either of you or Boris who — to be clear — I think is an idiot,” Mr. Herschmann wrote in a different email. “When I questioned Boris’s legal experience to work on challenging a presidential election since he appeared to have none — challenges that resulted in multiple court failures — he boasted that he was ‘just having fun,’ while also taking selfies and posting pictures online of his escapades.”

[snip]

In language that mirrored the federal statute against witness tampering, Mr. Herschmann told Mr. Corcoran that Mr. Epshteyn, himself under subpoena in Georgia, “should not in any way be involved in trying to influence, delay or prevent my testimony.”

“He is not in a position or qualified to opine on any of these issues,” Mr. Herschmann said.

Mr. Epshteyn declined to respond to a request for comment. [my emphasis]

The story ends by reporting that Herschmann’s, “testimony was postponed.”

I’m not aware of any report that describes Herschmann has been called back to testify.

The story is dated September 16, 2022.

Two days earlier, Cassidy Hutchinson had testified to the January 6 Committee (after already beginning to cooperate with DOJ) that after she testified on May 17 that Herschmann was present for a conversation about Trump saying that “Hang Mike Pence” chants were justified, her then-lawyer Stefan Passantino seemingly contacted Herschmann who then called Hutchinson and told her, “I didn’t know that you remembered so much.”

Ms. Cheney. When Stefan said “I’ll talk to some people,” do you know who he was referring to?

Ms. Hutchinson. I didn’t ask. assume it was the same entourage of people that he had been conferring with for the past few weeks.

You know, I had also received a call from Eric Herschmann, I believe on Friday, May 20th. I believe it was Friday, May 20th. It was, because this was after the interview.

And Eric called me that evening, and I just apologized. And he was like, you know, “I didn’t know that you remembered so much, Cassidy. Mark [Meadows] really put you in bad positions. I’m really sorry that he didn’t take care of you better. You never should’ve had to testify to any of that. That’s all of our jobs. I don’t know why they didn’t ask us, they asked you instead.”

And I was just like, “Look, Eric like, it is what it is.” And he kind of talked for — it was probably a 30-minute conversation.

In the same J6C appearance two days before that Maggie story painting Ephsteyn as a witness tamperer, Hutchinson told the committee that she suspected that Passantino had spoken to Maggie about her testimony, something that, if true, would have had the effect of sharing her testimony with other witnesses without appearing to obstruct the investigation. She also described Alex Cannon to be involved in the outreach to Maggie.

The next day, September 15, Hutchinson provided the committee more detail about Passantino’s alleged efforts to share her testimony with Herschmann and others. Passantino told her to call Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, as well as Alex Cannon and Eric Herschmann, Hutchinson told the committee on September 15.

The day after my third interview with the committee, on Wednesday, May 18th, Stefan let me know that I — he spoke with Justin Clark, Alex Cannon, and Eric Herschmann and suggested that I call — that I have a call with all three of them.

I reached out to initiate the call with Alex Cannon and Justin Clark per Stefan’s instruction. And the that Friday, May 20th, received a call on Signal from Eric Herschmann.

So on September 14, Hutchinson told J6C about behavior involving Herschmann resembling witness tampering, including behavior involving Maggie Haberman! On September 15, Hutchinson told J6C about behavior involving Herschmann resembling witness tampering. And on September 16, Maggie Haberman quoted Herschmann blaming Epshteyn for any witness tampering.

All that background is why I find the way Maggie ended her foray into campaign finance journalism so interesting. She quotes anonymous sources — not the public J6C transcripts showing that Passantino and Alex Cannon were sourcing her earlier reporting on this — attributing Hutchinson’s testimony as the genesis of this focus on paying law firms.

The questions of which lawyers and vendors have been paid, and for what, intensified after the House select committee investigating Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power told the Justice Department that it had evidence that a lawyer representing a witness had tried to coach her testimony in ways that would be favorable to Mr. Trump. The witness in question was later identified by people familiar with the committee’s work as Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide.

Her lawyer at the time, Stefan Passantino, was a former White House deputy counsel under Mr. Trump and was paid through Save America.

The reason I’m interested in this is because the point of Passantino’s alleged efforts to coach Hutchinson’s testimony was not, primarily, to protect Trump. According to Hutchinson’s testimony, at least, it was to protect Eric Herschmann, someone who has had tremendous success (like his close associate Jared Kushner) laundering his reputation through Maggie Haberman.

Ms. Hutchinson. ~ You previously asked about individuals he had raised with me. In my conversation with him earlier that afternoon, when I [sic] asking him about the engagement letter, I did also ask Stefan if he was representing any other January 6th clients. And he had said, “No one that I believe that you would have any conflicts with.”

And I said, “Would you mind letting me know?” Now, again, to this day, I still don’t know if that’s really a kosher question to ask an attorney, if they can share their clients with me, but I wanted to make sure that there actually weren’t any conflicts, because I didn’t have anything in writing.

He wouldn’t tell me anybody he was representing before the January 6th Committee, but he did tell me that he had previously represented Eric Herschmann and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in unrelated matters.

And in that same conversation, he said, “So if you have any conversations with any of them, especially Eric Herschmann, we want to really work to protect Eric Herschmann.”

And I remember saying sarcastically to him, “Eric can handle himself. Eric has his own resources. Why do I have to protect Eric?” He said, “No, no, no. Like, just to keep everything straight, like, we want to protect Eric with all of this.”

Ms. Cheney. Did he explain what he meant?

Ms. Hutchinson. No. And, to be honest, I didn’t ask. I didn’t have anything with Eric anyway that I felt that I had to protect. And I say that because, at the time of being back in Trump world — this is where I look back and regret some of this, but — like, I did feel a need to protect certain people. But with somebody like Eric, I didn’t feel that need, I didn’t find it necessary.  didn’t — I didn’t think that Eric did anything wrong at the time.

Ms. Cheney. Did it have something to do with NARA?

Ms. Hutchinson. He never really explained to me what it was exactly that we wanted to protect Eric on. I sort of erred on the side of: Maybe he just represents Eric in ongoing litigation, whether it’s financial disclosures or whatever it might be.

And, again, I just didn’t prod too much on that either, because, you know, I was under the impression that Eric helped set me up with Stefan, so I didn’t — I was worried that Stefan would then go back-channel to Eric and — this is my very paranoid brain at the time, but I was worried that if I, you know, pushed this subject a little too much, that he would then go back to Eric Herschmann and say, “Cassidy asked a lot of questions about you, like, why she needs to protect you.” So just didn’t really press the subject too much on that.

And as Hutchinson learned somewhat belatedly, Passantino had business ties to Alex Cannon and, possibly, Herschmann.

So I — “I want to make sure that I’m getting the dates right with these things?

He goes, “No, no, no.” He said, “Look, we want to get you in, get you out.

We’re going to downplay your role. You were a secretary. You had an administrative role. Everyone’s on the same page about this. It’s extremely unfair that they’re” “they’re” being the committee – “that the committee is putting you in this position in the first place. You really have nothing to do with any of this. It’s Mark’s fault that you’re even involved in this. We’re completely happy to be taking care of you now. We had no idea that you weren’t being taken care of this last year. So we’re really happy that you reached back out to us. But the less you remember, the better. I don’t think that you should be filling in any calendars or anything.”

[Redacted] When he said a

Ms. Cheney. Go ahead.

[Redacted] So everyone’s on the same page about this, did he explain who he was referring to when he said “everyone”?

Ms. Hutchinson. He didn’t at that moment. Then there are times throughout my working relationship with Stefan where he said similar things that I asked.

Later that day, sort of put together that the “they” he was referring to then were Justin Clark, Alex Cannon, Eric Herschmann. I think that’s — yeah, think that’s all of them.

Ms. Cheney. And how did you put that together?

Ms. Hutchinson.  Because he — he had said that — Justin — yeah, Justin Clark. Stefan had told me that — towards the end of the day that because he was involved with Elections, LLC, and tangentially, I guess Trump’s PACs, he had law partners. And unless I was extremely unwilling for him to share, he said it would be natural for him to have to share that information with the people that he works with that are his partners that are involved in Trump world.

That is, Hutchinson testified that Passantino’s alleged effort to coach her testimony was not (necessarily) an effort to protect Trump. It was an effort to protect his business scheme, a business scheme that may have included Herschmann.

In Maggie’s foray into campaign finance journalism, she did not calculate payments to Elections LLC in her discussion of law firms paid by Save America PAC, though it was paid upwards of $400,000 since Trump left office. The last of those payments — for $10,000 — was on December 7, after Trump formalized his 2024 presidential bid. So if Maggie’s right that these payments are illegal, then that $10,000 would be one of the first overt acts in this new criminal exposure.

As it happens, all this ties back to Maggie’s newest story breaking the news of a subpoena to Ivanka and Jared. I’m sure Jack Smith wants to ask Ivanka and Jared about their efforts to get dad to call off his mob.

But he may also want to know why Herschmann — a lawyer whose legal status in the White House remains entirely unexplained — why Herschmann, according to Pat Cipollone’s testimony, told the White House Counsel not to join in that Oval Office meeting where Trump ordered Pence to break the law because “this is family.”

“This is family,” Cipollone said Herschmann told him before he walked in the door. “You don’t need to be here.”

I would imagine that Jack Smith wants to know why, at that moment when Trump prepared to give his Vice President an illegal order, Herschmann was treated as family.

Update: Anna Bower informed me that Epshteyn told the Fulton County Grand Jury that he,

served as a legal, communications, and policy advisor to President Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign; and he continues to serve as legal counsel to President Trump to this day.

He cited NY state’s bar rules to argue that his ethical obligations extend well beyond attorney-client privilege.

In contrast, the client confidences that Mr. Epshteyn is required to safeguard as a New York-licensed attorney pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“NYRPC”)4 reach a broader and less easily identifiable array of communications and information. Like its corollary rule in virtually every U.S. jurisdiction, NYRPC 1.6 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information … or use such information to the disadvantage of a client or for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person” absent client consent or “to comply with other law or court order.” NYRPC l.6(a)-(b). The rule defines “Confidential Information” to mean “information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or ( c) information that the client has requested be kept confidential.” NYRPC 1.6(a)(3). The duty to preserve client confidences under Rule 1.6 is much broader that the attorney-client privilege, it includes any information gained during the representation regardless of its nature or source, and it necessarily includes information that is not subject to any other privilege or protection, provided that it is not already generally known in the community.

Epshteyn has always had a far stronger case he was working in a legal role starting in April or May of last year than while he was on the campaign (where he was described by other witnesses, like Jenna Ellis was also described, as playing a PR role).

In public comments from Emily Kohrs, she suggested that Rudy, who was barred in NY still when he represented Trump during the 2020 election, provided thoughtful question by question answers about whether he could answer questions.

Trial by Combat: Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman Speeches Included in Ed Badalian Exhibit List

/35 Comments/in , /by

In a pre-trial filing in the case of Ed Badalian — who is charged with conspiring with Michael Fanone’s now admitted assailant, Danny Rodriguez, to obstruct the vote certification — the government identified at least six exhibits pertaining to the events at the Ellipse on January 6 it may introduce at trial.

That includes not just video and a transcript of Trump’s speech, but also of John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani’s speeches.

Exhibit 311 likely references the documentary clip showing Rodriguez, seemingly responding to Trump’s call-out of Pence in his speech, turning to the camera, stating “Joe Biden,” and making a throat-slitting movement several times (See 25:43 in this video).

Focusing on what happened at the Trump rally is unusual in January 6 trials.

Not even with some of the defendants who seemed most enraged by Trump — such as Kyle Fitzsimons — did the government rely on more than a still picture of the Ellipse event. In the Dustin Thompson case, where Thompson had affirmatively claimed that Trump’s speech had authorized him to storm the Capitol (and where Thompson had falsely testified Rudy’s speech had done so too), the government included just a YouTube of Rudy’s speech that had been sent to Thompson. They had Trump’s speech available as an exhibit, but relied, instead, on Thompson’s Uber and GPS records to prove he hadn’t seen Rudy’s speech.

The government has more often than not tried to keep the Ellipse rally out of January 6 trials than include it.

But in this case, the government may be in a position to do something else: to tie Trump, Rudy, and Eastman directly to the violence at the Capitol, to tie Trump directly to the attack that almost killed Michael Fanone.

As DOJ has done with other charged conspiracies, the indictment, Rodriguez’ statement of offense, as well as that of co-conspirator Gina Bisignano trace how the co-conspirators — here, a group of anti-maskers from Southern California — responded to Trump’s call by arming themselves, traveling together to DC, getting riled up at Trump’s speech, then going to the Capitol to engage in some of the most important violence and destruction during the attack.

In response to Trump’s December 19 tweet, for example, someone in the group described that, “Trump is calling on everyone to go to DC Jan 6th.” Two days later, Badalian announced, “we need to violently remove traitors and if they are in key positions rapidly replace them with able bodied Patriots.” On December 29, Rodriguez boasted, “Congress can hang. I’ll do it. Please let us get these people dear God.” Sometime before leaving for DC, Rodriguez told someone else, he would “assassinate Joe Biden” if he got the chance. On January 5, Badalian said, “we don’t want to fight antifa lol we want to arrest traitors.” Also on January 5, Rodriguez promised, “There will be blood. Welcome to the revolution.”

In this case, they also have a remarkable confession. DOJ has Rodriguez explaining to the FBI that he didn’t plan on murdering anyone like Fanone, he just thought there might be casualties because, he believed, he was fighting a civil war.

I kept thinking that we were going to go to, like, a civil war and it’s going to go hot and we’re just — it’s all going to — you know? I don’t know. I didn’t know — we didn’t — nobody knew, so we just thought that it was going to — we were preparing for the — we’re trying to save the country. We thought we were saving the country. I thought I was helping to save the country.

[snip]

A. I didn’t go planning to murder anybody.

Q. I’m not saying that.

A. But I knew that it was a possibility that —

BY AGENT ELIAS: Q. There could be causalities and —

A. There could be causalities. That, like, if this was another civil war, this was another 1776, another 4th of July or something, that that could be a possibility and —

But what they also have are the immediate reactions to Trump’s speech (and perhaps Eastman and Rudy’s, too), that turn to a camera and the show of slitting Biden’s throat. Rodriguez is not the only one who responded to Trump’s incitement by voicing plans to attack the Capitol. Bisignano (who may yet live to regret her nine month effort to renege on her plea deal) also responded directly to Trump’s incitement. “I hope Mike Pence is going to do the right thing,” Trump called out. “I hope so too,” Bisignano responded, “he’s deep state.” And as she marched to the Capitol, Bisignano filmed herself describing that “we are marching to the Capitol to put some pressure on Mike Pence.” Once there, she described, “we are storming the Capitol,” before she, Rodriguez, and Badalian did just that together.

One of the key pieces of evidence Jack Smith’s prosecutors have tying Donald Trump and John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani to the attack on the Capitol are Greg Jacob’s retorts to Eastman that day. “The knowing amplification of [Eastman’s] theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law,” Jacob told Eastman at 3:05 PM on January 6, as he sheltered with the Vice President from Danny Rodriguez and Gina Bisignano and thousands of other attackers, “has led us to where we are.” At 2:14PM, just as attackers broke through a window of the Capitol, Jacob was more succinct: “[T]hanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.”

An hour after that initial breach, Danny Rodriguez would grab Fanone and, using a taser he was handed inside the Tunnel, tase the officer twice in the neck, leading to a heart attack and other injuries that remain redacted in Rodriguez’ statement of offense. In the morning, Rudy Giuliani called for “trial by combat.” John Eastman told listeners, “We no longer live in a self governing republic” if they couldn’t get Pence to let Republicans investigate further. Trump told his followers that if they didn’t fight, they wouldn’t have a country anymore.

In the morning, Trump’s speech led Rodriguez to imagine knifing Joe Biden, and in the afternoon, Danny Rodriguez almost killed Michael Fanone.

I don’t know if DOJ intends to do this (and as noted in the exhibit list, Badalian wants these exhibits excluded from trial on relevance grounds), but Amit Mehta certainly believed Trump might bear Aid and Abet liability for assaults like the one Rodriguez committed on Michael Fanone.

And in the case where you can draw the clearest line between things that Trump and Rudy and Eastman said at the rally to an assault and other violence at the Capitol, DOJ has laid the ground work to make that case.

Update: Here’s the updated exhibit list for the trial with specific times for the video of Trump and Giuliani’s speeches. The times from the latter are from when Rudy spoke, not John Eastman; it appears to include his “trial by combat” line.

The Evolving Robert Costello – Steve Bannon Timeline

/24 Comments/in , /by

Robert Costello’s law firm, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, is suing Steve Bannon.

Can you blame them? According to the complaint, Bannon has stiffed the firm on $480,487.87 out of $855,487.87 they’ve billed him.

I’m interested in the complaint, though, for something other than the details of what a cheapskate Bannon is.

Here’s how the complaint describes the firm’s work for Bannon.

From on or about November 2020 through on or about November 2022, DHC provided legal services on behalf of the Defendant regarding several matters that included, but not limited to, a federal action captioned, United States v. Stephen Bannon, 20 Cr. 412 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.) which was dismissed against Defendant subsequent to a presidential pardon of him that was secured through the aid of DHC, represented Defendant with regards to a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (“Subpoena”), subsequently represented Defendant in response to a criminal contempt proceeding captioned, United States v. Stephen K. Bannon, 21Cr. 670 (CJN) (D.D.C.) regarding that Subpoena, and represented Defendant in a case brought by the former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, captioned In the Matter of the Application of Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. (collectively the “Legal Services”)

That mostly tracks what we know about Costello’s representation of Bannon. He publicly took over representing Bannon in the Build the Wall case on December 11, 2020 after Bannon’s prior criminal defense attorney, Bill Burck, fired him for threatening to execute Anthony Fauci and Chris Wray.

Costello represented Bannon in his contemptuous refusal to show up before the January 6 Committee and invoke Executive Privielge, and participated in two discussions with the government that the government treated as material to the contempt case against Bannon. There was a brief moment after Bannon was indicted on November 12, 2021, where it looked like David Schoen and Evan Corcoran would represent Bannon, alone. But on December 2, Costello filed to join the case, setting off a long discussion about whether Costello would be a witness or a lawyer on the case. That charade continued until July 2022, when Costello decided he might need to be a witness after all. See this post for some of that timeline.

It is true that Costello represented Bannon in the early period of NY State’s investigation into Bannon for the same fraud for which he was pardoned in the federal Build the Wall case. Though the November 2022 date roughly coincides with Bannon’s sentencing in October 2022.

Again, it mostly checks out.

The reason I’m interested, however, is that back in July 2022, when Costello was withdrawing from the Bannon contempt case, he gave a different timeline for his representation of Bannon, indicating that it went back two years earlier than the timeline DHC has laid out.

I am an attorney and Partner in the firm of Davidoff, Hutcher & Citron, LLP located at 605 Third Avenue, New York, New York. For the past 49 years I have been admitted to the bar of the State of New York, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I have been counsel to the above listed Defendant, Stephen K. Bannon on a number of different matters for the past three years. I am admitted to the bar of this District by way of pro hac vice motion. I have been co-counsel to Mr. Bannon throughout these proceedings as well as in connection with all interactions with the Select Committee which preceded the filing of Contempt of Congress misdemeanor charges in this Court. [my emphasis]

I noted at that time that it was a different timeline than was publicly known, the timeline that DHC lays out in its complaint.

Still, there may be a ready explanation for this discrepancy too: That Costello is including the period when he played a key role in the “Hunter Biden” “laptop” operation in the time period he represented Bannon, but DHC is not.

Even so, that timeline is a bit hazy, given some variation regarding whether he reached out in 2019 or 2020 in Mac Isaac’s story.

In any case, the discrepancy between DHC’s story and Costello’s about the length of time he represented Bannon may be of interest to Abbe Lowell, as he asks the Feds to investigate — among others — Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and Costello.

These disputes are interesting for another reason. As the Daily Beast laid out, Bannon has also been stiffing Evan Corcoran. And his third lawyer from the contempt case, Schoen, said last month he can no longer work with him in the NYS Build the Wall charges.

Even after the irreparable split in NYS, Schoen remained on Bannon’s appeal, where he has been stalling and where briefing won’t be done until May. Any appeal would be premised on Bannon’s understanding of the expectations surrounding Executive Privilege, which would seem to rely on Costello’s testimony.

I have no idea where this is going. Perhaps Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Lowell, can sort it out.

Pence’s Previously Redacted Documents and The Corcoran Scapegoating

/38 Comments/in , /by

Time for another update on the various investigations into stolen and mishandled documents.

Start with Mike Pence, who thus far, the press has assumed, is the safest among the three men being investigated from legal exposure.

The Friday before a holiday weekend, Pence’s team revealed FBI searched Pence’s office. The topline result was that they didn’t find any documents with classification markings, but the FBI did seize three “previously redacted documents.”

Federal agents removed three “previously redacted documents” — but none with classified markings — during an hours-long search of the office of former Vice President Mike Pence’s public policy organization Friday, Advancing American Freedom, according to a Pence spokesman.

That detail raises more questions than answers: It’s hard to understand why, even under the Presidential Records Act, FBI would seize previously redacted documents.

Further in, the same story hinted at one possible reason: if certain no-longer classified documents reveal the import of other documents marked as classified. For example, consider the possibility of a tie between the debate prep materials from Pence’s office and the package of documents seized from Pence’s home.

The documents taken Friday are believed to be materials used for 2020 debate preparation, a person familiar with the matter said.

Last week, the FBI removed one classified document and six other documents during a voluntary search of Pence’s Indiana home. A person familiar with the search told NBC News earlier this week that at least one other item was taken at that time because the relevant materials “were kept in a place that required the FBI to take more than just the documents.”

Such a tie might be exculpatory, for example: it might suggest that documents with classification markings had already been declassified in advance of some prepared debate line. Much of the debate between Pence and Kamala Harris focused on COVID response and China. It would be unsurprising for Trump to declassify information on China’s role in COVID in advance of that debate; nor would it be surprising to find such papers at Pence’s home, given his role in COVID response.

Two other topics from the debate potentially implicating classified materials might be resonate with the Trump investigation, though. To defend Trump’s national security record, for example, Pence raised the execution of Qasim Soleimani, claiming Trump ordered the attack, “when Qasim Soleimani was traveling to Baghdad, to harm two Americans.” Given the visible dates of the highly classified documents at Trump’s home, it would be unsurprising if one or several of those documents related to this decision, stolen as trophies of Trump’s most self-satisfying order as President.

Also in the debate, as part of a false claim that he and Trump had been spied on by the FBI, Pence raised a CIA document unsealed and submitted to the Mike Flynn docket days earlier.

[T]he FBI actually spied on President Trump and my campaign. I mean there were documents released this week that the CIA actually made a referral to the FBI documenting that those allegations were coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign

If these were among the previously redacted documents at Pence’s home, it would suggest that Trump’s obsession with stealing documents pertaining to the Russian investigation had spilled (heh) over into documents in Pence’s possession.

This is all speculative. But the report that FBI took documents that would not obviously substantiate either the mishandling of classified documents or a violation of the Presidential Records Act for the first time suggests that FBI may be pursuing some more interesting explanation for the classified documents at Pence’s home.

Things get more interesting when you turn to Mar-a-Lago.

Also on Friday, Rolling Stone told a tale that suggests Trump is being advised to ditch Evan Corcoran as a lawyer because he’ll soon be charged. To be clear: neither Rolling Stone nor I are claiming Corcoran will be charged.

The story, by Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley, is likely legal nonsense. But the two have reported a series of insider stories on Trump world that capture — perhaps more than any other journalistic team — the batshittery going on close to the former President. This is not bad reporting. Rather, it seems to be accurate reporting that captures the batshittery and bullshit of Trump’s inner circle. One story that is a close analogue of this one described how Trump wanted to expose the IDs of people involved in the Russian investigation, on that piggybacked off a NYT story that served as cover for the centrality of Russian documents in Trump’s obsession with stealing documents.

Anyway, this story may be explained by two earlier reports.

On February 14, the NYT version of the story that DOJ was seeking a crime-fraud waiver for Corcoran’s testimony included the detail — amid reports that multiple witnesses have been asked about Boris Epshteyn’s role in withholding the stolen documents — that Epshteyn once sought to establish a joint representation.

Prosecutors overseeing the documents investigation have also been asking witnesses questions about Boris Epshteyn, who has played a central role in coordinating lawyers on several of the investigations involving Mr. Trump, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. It was Mr. Epshteyn who first brought Mr. Corcoran into Mr. Trump’s orbit.

At least three lawyers have sat for interviews with the Justice Department during which questions about Mr. Epshteyn were asked — among them Ms. Bobb and, more recently, Alina Habba, people with knowledge of the matter said. A third lawyer close to Mr. Trump, Jesse Binnall, has also spoken with prosecutors about Mr. Epshteyn, the people said.

One person briefed on the interviews said that investigators were interested in discussions between Mr. Epshteyn and others about establishing a possible common-interest privilege in the documents case. A common-interest privilege creates a kind of umbrella privilege allowing groups of lawyers and clients to communicate with each other confidentially.

Such common-interest agreements are frequently used in cases with multiple lawyers and multiple witnesses. But prosecutors are asking questions indicating they’re interested in whether Mr. Epshteyn was trying to improperly influence witness testimony, the person briefed on the interviews said.

The NYT story bears the same markers of MAL bullshit that some others on this story do, notably, claiming that Beryl Howell has always ruled against Trump when (among other things) she has deferred certain decisions, like holding Trump in contempt, forcing DOJ to do more work. There’s good reason to believe the claim is just the regurgitated bullshit claims made by Trump’s lawyers.

On February 17, Reuters reported (and thus far, they appear to be alone with this scoop) that Corcoran’s firm hired an attorney to represent him.

A lawyer for former President Donald Trump retained an attorney to represent himself as prosecutors step up their inquiry into the handling of sensitive documents at Trump’s Florida residence, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

Evan Corcoran, who has represented Trump in interactions with the government over presidential records taken to his Mar-a-Lago resort, has turned to Michael Levy, a prominent white-collar lawyer in Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.

Levy was hired by Corcoran’s law firm, Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White, to represent Corcoran in the probe, according to one of the people.

This is not surprising. It’s grown up lawyering. But it provides important context of Epshteyn’s call to adopt a joint defense, in part because it explains with whom Epshteyn might want to form a mutual defense, in addition to the lawyer representing Christina Bobb and Alina Habba.

With that background in mind, take a look at the Rolling Stone piece. It describes not that Corcoran will be charged, but that Trump is being advised he will be.

In at least three meetings this year, according to two sources familiar with the matter, legal and political counselors to Trump have urged him to dump Evan Corcoran, one of the ex-president’s top attorneys in the federal probe into Trump’s handling of classified documents.

Some of the former president’s lawyers have explicitly told Trump that, based on information they have privately reviewed, they believe the Department of Justice has a strong case against Corcoran, arguing charges — including potentially for obstruction of justice — are “very likely,” the sources said. These advisers have argued that if the Justice Department indeed does come for Corcoran, it’s imperative for Trump to distance himself to avoid being dragged into possible further legal jeopardy by his own attorney.

Trump, the sources say, sounded “receptive” to their perspective. However, as of mid-February, it appears he wasn’t as receptive as they had hoped: Corcoran is still on Trump’s legal team.

As RS describes it, this is explicitly an attempt to pin the blame for what happened last summer on Corcoran.

Several of Trump’s close advisers who’ve recently spoken to him about this have argued to the ex-president that any potential wrongdoing on this matter could, somehow, be pinned entirely on Corcoran, and not Trump himself.

Even better, it includes this claim — that excludes Epshteyn from the list of lawyers whom DOJ might be targeting.

“These types of motions [requesting that a judge nullify attorney-client privilege based on the crime-fraud exception] would only be served upon the attorneys who’ve appeared in the case: Jim Trusty, John Rowley, Evan Corcoran, Tim Parlatore, and Lindsey Halligan; the five of them would be the only people who have access to these documents,” says a person familiar with the internal proceedings of Trump’s legal team. “Any source other than that would not be speaking from a position of access and would likely be speaking based on their own personal agenda, rather than actual facts. [Furthermore], when DOJ targets lawyers, it is often being done from a position of weakness in their underlying case, as a method of undermining the integrity of the defense legal team. Removal of Evan Corcoran … would serve the purpose of giving DOJ exactly what it wanted.” [bracket original]

Epshteyn has been at the center of these discussions from the start — he’s the guy who brought in Corcoran, he’s the guy who called up Christina Bobb and had her show up to be a fallgal for a misleading declaration on June 3. To exclude him from this comment — either because he’s the one you’re talking to or because someone is trying to obscure his centrality in all of it — is telling.

Trump’s lawyers believe that they can wait out the end of Beryl Howell’s term and they’ll be the ones who decide whether DOJ can get a crime-fraud exception for Corcoran’s testimony. That may not even be the case if Corcoran plays along. But if he doesn’t — if his own lawyer advises him that fighting a crime-fraud determination puts him in legal risk he’s not currently in — then it may explain why people at MAL are trying to preemptively claim Corcoran was behind a lot of epically shitty legal advice last summer and not Epshteyn.

image_print