Posts

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s Disappearing Agreement to a Litigation Hold

/38 Comments/in , /by

I was disappointed, in the way we here in the peanut gallery sometimes are, that Tish James had to specifically rebut the silly things that Lindsey Halligan’s loaner AUSA, Roger Keller, claimed to try to excuse Lindsey’s stalking of Anna Bower.

Attorney General James’ original request asked Judge Jamal Walker to order the government to do three things:

  1. Abstain from further extrajudicial statements like Lindsey’s Signal stalking of Bower
  2. Follow rules and laws requiring prosecutors (and Federal employees generally) to retain their communications
  3. Create and maintain a log of all contact between any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media

As Lawfare’s excellent trial dispatch from Molly Roberts described, when initially presented with this question, loaner AUSA Keller — “a civil litigation lawyer by training,” Roberts helpfully noted — got hung up on a contact log tracking not just with the reporters Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer spoke to, but also with whom others (this is implicit, but let me make it more obvious) like Eagle Ed Martin did.

Keller responded to this request, that prosecutors follow the rules, by demanding that the defense follow the same rules … which is not how it works, both Abbe Lowell and Judge Walker reportedly responded.

The next motion invites a bit more controversy, or at least confusion. James also filed a motion prior to the arraignment asking the court to order the government to follow rules preventing disclosure of investigative and case materials, as well as to refrain from extrajudicial statements concerning the case to the press and public. This motion was prompted in part by an Oct. 20 article published inLawfare by my colleague, Senior Editor Anna Bower, detailing texts sent to her by Halligan in which Halligan criticizes Bower’s tweets about New York Times coverage of grand jury testimony in the case.

This violated, the filing says, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It argues that the exchange with Bower and the other instances of apparent disclosure it describes—including pre-indictment reports that prosecutors intended to bring charges—also violate various rules, regulations, and ethical obligations. The motion doesn’t ask for a finding to that effect, only for an order to prevent such conduct in the future.

The judge, mentioning only “a journalist” and “an article published,” notes these oddities of the filing. Anyone hoping for a television-ready showdown in which the defense demands the prosecution be held in contempt is quickly disappointed: Judge Walker has interpreted the filing correctly, confirms Lowell.

The judge determines that leaves the prosecution three options: oppose the motion in its entirety; don’t oppose it at all; or oppose the proposed relief. The Eastern District prosecutors would have to preserve all documents relevant to the trial (a litigation hold) as well as create a log of all contact between its attorneys or agents and the media. The litigation hold doesn’t bother Keller. But he expresses reservations about the log, mentioning that “the defendant is also active on the Internet.” Specifically, he takes issue with her tweeting that she is innocent.

The judge, understandably, appears perplexed. He remarks that it’s unclear what Keller is asking. And it is: A public tweet from James in which she says “I am not fearful, I am fearless” has little to do with contact between her attorneys and the media. The misunderstanding only becomes greater when Keller elaborates that any log requirement for the government should also be a requirement for the defendant, and should cover “statements of innocence before the press.”

Does he mean that James should have to keep a record of any proclamations of her intention to fight the charges against her? Or does he mean she shouldn’t be allowed to make them at all?

Keller seems to be suggesting that the restrictions on the defendant’s public speech should mirror those placed on the prosecution. But this is not how these things work. Prosecutors have unique obligations not placed on defendants, who have First Amendment rights to protest their innocence.

Judge Walker delicately instructs Keller—a civil litigation lawyer by training, as it turns out—to take some time to think about the matter and get back to him. Lowell, for his part, declares that the rules to which government lawyers are held aren’t the same ones that apply to a defendant.

“The court certainly understands the requirements,” responds the judge. It is a little less certain that the prosecutor does. [my emphasis]

Now, when I first read Roberts’ dispatch, I honestly thought Keller’s confusion stemmed from that detail, “a civil litigation lawyer by training.” He just doesn’t know what he’s doing.

But when I started writing an abandoned post on his response, I came to believe he — like Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer — is mostly performing for a one man audience. To understand why I think that, check out how loaner AUSA Keller spends a 17¶¶ response:

  1. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer and loaner AUSA Keller ask that Walker not impose unilateral requirements to preserve all communications and keep a log [my emphasis]
  2. Background: a grand jury indicted the Defendant
  3. Walker should not impose unilateral requirements to preserve all communications and keep a log and also, US v. Trump! (citing the DC Circuit opinion partly upholding the gag on Trump), because Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had to protect her client [my emphasis]
  4. Here’s a citation that’s totally inapt but which will allow me to argue Tish James has to shut her yap
  5. If the government has to “preserve all communications with any media person” and also keep a log of those contacts, “the unstated threat that she – at some future point in time – may engage in a ‘gotcha’ game where she brings a sanctions motion” may “chill all Government/media interaction” [my bold, italics original]
  6. “There is no Court-imposed requirement that the Government preserves the records,” but can you imagine if a log of all communications means “all communications”?
  7. If we have to follow the rules, Tish James has to follow rules for prosecutors too (citing US v Trump again)
  8. “Defendant’s right to a fair trial does not give [her] the right to insist upon the opposite of that right – that is a trial prejudiced in [her] favor,” citing US v. Trump again
  9. Because she’s a lawyer, Attorney General James has to adhere to NY rules of professional conduct even if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer refuses to adhere to any rules of professional conduct
  10. After her arraignment, James said she “will not bow” and there have to be rules against that!
  11. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer covertly bullying a journalist on disappearing messages is nowhere near as bad as Tish James saying “I will not bow” on a telly that Donald Trump can see!
  12. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was just protecting her client — which client I will decline to name — “from substantial undue prejudice”
  13. Grand jury secrecy is no big deal
  14. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer didn’t explicitly reveal what went on in the grand jury
  15. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was merely — and heroically — “protect[ing] her client from unfair prejudice resulting from reporting half-truths”
  16. I’m going to distract from the way Bower caught Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer pretending “thousand(s)” of dollars was not just two thousand
  17. You should tell Tish to shut her yap!

I admit, the first time I read this filing, I read in terms of obvious bullshit to rebut, like I imagine lawyers do.

But when you lay it out like this, paragraph by paragraph, the pressing question becomes whether these people — not just Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, Donald Trump’s defense attorney, but also loaner AUSA Keller — think Donald Trump, and not the US of A, are their client, a client demanding that his minions ensure that Tish James doesn’t become a rock star because of this prosecution.

Because otherwise, why demand that Tish James bow down? Why cite US v. Trump so prominently?

James addressed both these questions. She asked, Who exactly do these people think their client is?

Third, the government’s assertion that Ms. Halligan was only trying to protect “her client” raises the question of who she believes “her client” to be. Her “client” is neither the President, nor the Attorney General, nor the Administration, nor even her Office. It is the United States, as the case caption makes clear, and “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.”2 The point remains true regardless of whether the outcome is the one that the government favors. “Justice is done” when its “citizens in the courts” receive a fair trial. And in any event, a defendant’s fair trial rights decidedly trump any so-called “unfair prejudice” to the government’s case from public reporting. Courts have held that extrajudicial statements and comments by attorneys may be restricted to protect a defendant’s fair trial rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings—which override any desire by government prosecutors to “attempt to protect [Ms. Halligan’s] client from unfair prejudice.” Opp. at 6. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966); Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1066 (1991).

2 DOJ, Remarks as Delivered by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-deliversremarks-office-access-justices-gideon (Mar. 17, 2023).

The insistence that “fair trial rights decidedly trump any so-called ‘unfair prejudice'” is, I hope, an intentional double entendre.

James’ citation for the quote, “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts,” is more subtle. The footnote cites this speech by Merrick Garland, a tribute to public defenders and defense attorneys generally, in which he emphasized the import of rule of law.

It reaffirmed that the law protects all of us – the poor as well as the rich, the powerless as well as the powerful.

In so doing, it reaffirmed this country’s commitment to the Rule of Law.

And trust in the Rule of Law is what holds American democracy together.

But the words, “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts,” are not Garland’s words (though that was not the only speech where he used them). They were spoken by Willliam Taft’s Solicitor General, Frederick Lehmann, and they are inscribed on the building at DOJ. Judge Walker (a former AUSA) will presumably recognize that; Keller the loaner AUSA should: but Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer may see only a citation to Garland and worry about her boss — her client — again.

Then there’s James’s treatment of Keller the loaner AUSA’s inapt reliance on US v. Trump. She uses that to recall Trump’s misconduct as a defendant, something she knows well.

The government’s reliance on United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990 (D.C. Cir. 2023)—a case affirming a limited gag order placed on then-defendant Donald Trump in response to his public statements threatening witnesses, participants, and the judiciary during litigation—to defend Ms. Halligan’s interactions with the reporter is entirely misguided. Opp. at 3–4. Trump is relevant only to the extent that it proves the relative strength of a criminal defendant’s First Amendment rights and the extraordinary circumstances required to justify any burden on such rights. See id. (“[A] criminal defendant—who is presumed to be innocent—may very well have a greater constitutional claim than other trial participants to criticize and speak out against the prosecution and the criminal trial process that seek to take away his liberty.”). The Trump court set out facts justifying the order in vigorous detail, including a timeline of President Trump’s extensive attacks on witnesses, court officials, judges, law clerks, and other government personnel. See id. at 1010. It also catalogued the violent and threatening responses resulting from President Trump’s statements. See id. at 1011.

Even under those extraordinary circumstances, the court still found that “Mr. Trump [was] free to make statements criticizing the current administration, the Department of Justice, and the Special Counsel, as well as statements that this prosecution is politically motivated or that he [was] innocent of the charges against him.” Id. at 1028. Attorney General James’ speech, including following her initial appearance, cannot be reasonably compared to the statements that led to the United States v. Trump gag order, and regardless, would have been outside of its reach.

And James invoked Trump’s “almost weekly … disparaging comments against her” to suggest the government won’t win a war of the lesser wrong.

The comparison that the government now offers is to a public statement by a defendant who has faced almost weekly assertions by the President, or those carrying out his bidding, calling for her prosecution and conviction or making other disparaging comments against her. The government’s argument appears to be that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” But the defendant has not contravened the cited rules; the government has. The relief requested in the Motion is intended only to ensure that does not happen again and that, if it does, the government does not delete the evidence of its wrongdoing. That relief should be unobjectionable to the government.

The James prosecution is not functionally necessary for Donald Trump’s witch hunt — it is discrete punishment for someone who humiliated Donald Trump by treating him as a garden variety fraudster. That may be why Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer only got one loaner AUSA for this case, as compared to two overt ones for the Comey case (plus at least one more guy writing the filings), which is one part of the larger project. So maybe this is all about the posturing, an attempt to ensure that nothing about this prosecution backfires on the “client.”

But the focus on Trump — the need to respond to the totally inapt reliance on US v. Tump — distracted from something potentially more important.

Go back to bullet 5 again. Here’s that full quote:

Essentially, Defendant attempts to chill all Government/media interaction with the unstated threat that she – at some future point in time – may engage in a “gotcha” game where she brings a sanctions motion because the Government inadvertently failed to maintain a document or include a contact in its log.

This is an astonishing statement, one James addresses this way:

The opposition’s hyperbolic claim that the Motion seeks something like a gag order, Opp. at 3, fares no better. Government counsel and their agents have an ongoing obligation to refrain from certain types of extrajudicial statements and disclosures that may jeopardize a fair trial in this case. James Mot. at Sec. I. The defense is not asking the Court to “chill” all the government’s interaction with the media; it concedes that many statements that “a reasonable person would expect to be further disseminated by any means of public communications” are permissible.1 James Mot. at 9 (quoting Loc. Crim. R. 57.1(C)). Rather, the defense is seeking the Court’s assistance in assuring that the government adheres to the rules it has set for itself.

1 Another red herring, based on nothing in the Motion, is the government’s suggestion that Attorney General James is “attempt[ing] to chill all Government/media interaction” to later play “a ‘gotcha’ game” over the government’s failure to maintain a document or include a contact in its log. Opp. at 3. Following long-standing rules on extrajudicial statements is not “gotcha,” it is basic to the government’s obligation to protect fair trials.

These are prosecutors, wailing about being asked to retain documents! The government complains about being asked to preserve documents five times, plus the requirement that it maintain documents in its chill comment. And loaner AUSA Keller makes those complaints after having agreed to a litigation hold at the arraignment, something James notes in the first paragraph.

[A]s government counsel acknowledged at the October 24, 2025, initial appearance and arraignment, the government agreed to comply with the litigation hold request made in the Motion to prevent any further deletions and to preserve any other extrajudicial communications that may have been made.

Loaner AUSA Keller outright states that it would “chill” … something if prosecutors are asked to retain all their documents, something that normal prosecutors do as a matter of course, at least until a matter is concluded. This is like Trump demanding that he get to wipe every phone involved in this prosecution on a daily basis, after spending years misrepresenting what happened after Mueller team members left that team.

It’s not a “gotcha” if, as a prosecutor, you start deleting documents willy nilly. It is a real violation. It should be. Especially in a case like this one where the President accidentally issues orders on his social media site intended to be private. Is there a whole stash of Truth Social DMs about this case that have been deleted?

So I get the point of replying to the issues loaner AUSA Keller raised, including the inapt nod to the indignities that Donald Trump suffered after he got indicted and then threatened to kill witnesses (including the witness he almost got killed on January 6).

But that repeated complaint about merely retaining all your communications, particularly coming after already orally agreeing to do so, has me wondering if something much bigger than Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s stalking problem is going on.

Update: Judge Walker has issued the litigation hold but not required prosecutors to log their contact with journalists. He even extended his admonition on complying with Local Rules to James’ legal team as well as prosecutors.

The Court also ORDERS all counsel to comply with Local Rule 57.1, whichprohibits any “lawyer, law firm, or law enforcement personnel associated with the prosecution or defense” from making or authorizing4 certain extrajudicial statements, including offering “[a]ny opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case,” subject to their professional obligations. E.D. Va. Crim. R. 57.1(C)(6). Any “lawyer who is participating . . . in the . . . litigation of [this] matter” may also have an ethical duty to refrain from making extrajudicial statements that pose a risk of prejudicing the proceeding. See ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.6 (2023).5

The footnotes to this passage decline to extend the local rules to Tish James herself, but does extend them to anything her attorneys advise her to say.

3 In its opposition to the motion, the government argues that the alleged statements regarding the grand jury proceedings do not “rise to the same level” as the defendant’s public statements proclaiming her innocence. ECF No. 30 at 5. The Court does not believe a comparison of the defendant’s public statements and the government’s interactions with the media does much to resolve any question presented here.

4 The parties do not discuss this point in their briefing, but the Court observes that the Local Rules’ prohibition on ‘authorizing’ extrajudicial statements would appear to apply to public statements a defendant might make with the advice of counsel—though Rule 57.1 binds only the lawyer, not the defendant.

5 The government argues that the defendant herself is subject to certain restrictions on her communication with the media because she is a “lawyer.” ECF No. 30 at 4 (quoting E.D. Va. Crim. R. 57.1(C)). But the Court finds that “lawyer” within the meaning of the Local Rules refers to a person practicing law in this district, not to any individual with a juris doctor degree or a bar license. Accordingly, this Order does not extend to the defendant’s speech as a defendant. But see supra n.2.

And he cites US v. Trump back at loaner AUSA Keller (making several copy and paste errors in the process) for the principle that defendants have more right to speak than the attorneys on the case.

At this stage of the litigation, the Court does not find that a restriction on the defendant’s own speech is necessary to ensure a fair trial for both sides. The Court certainly has the power to “control the speech and conduct even of defendants in criminal trials when necessary to protect the criminal justice process,” United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citing Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. 539, 553–54 (1976)). But so far, the government has not demonstrated that the defendant’s speech has risen to the level that it must be dampened in spite of her First Amendment rights in order to preserve a just legal process. See id. at 1008 (recognizing that “a criminal defendant—who is presumed to be innocent—may very well have a greater constitutional claim than other trial participants to criticize and speak out against [t]he prosecution and the [criminal] trial process . . . .”).

One of the funniest part of Judge Walker’s opinion his how he refers to Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s unlawful role.

The motion criticizes alleged communications between a government attorney1and a member of the media via the encrypted messaging app Signal.

1 The status of the government attorney who made the alleged statements is the subject of a motion pending before the Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie. ECF No. 22. Thus, the Court will avoid referencing the role of the attorney in this case. Additionally, this Court generally does not refer to government attorneys by name. It will not depart from that practice here

Share this entry

A Tale of Three Footnotes for “Purported Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan”

/33 Comments/in /by

I suppose I should not have doubted that Abbe Lowell would file a request for relief based on Lindsey Halligan’s stalking of Anna Bower.

I mean, I didn’t doubt it.

But I was impatient. I should also have considered the optimal timing for Lowell to do that: the evening before the arraignment.

What a way for Lindsey Halligan to start out on the wrong foot with Judge Jamar Walker, with both the request to make Lindsey follow the rules on public comment and notice that Attorney General James (as Lowell refers to his client throughout) intends to move — tomorrow — to disqualify Lindsey on a schedule that will coincide with Jim Comey’s parallel attempt.

The request itself makes ample use of the opening Lindsey gave James to mock her inexperience. It refers to her as the “purported interim US Attorney” (or similar) five times.

Although the government sought and filed the indictment in this case on October 9, 2025—signed only by purported interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—articles issued before the charges were filed indicated that charges would be brought.

What precipitates this motion now is a digital messaging exchange that occurred after the government brought charges, between purported interim U.S. Attorney Halligan and Anna Bower, a senior journalist for Lawfare, published on Monday, October 20, 2025.

[snip]

After confirming Ms. Halligan’s identity, Ms. Bower asked the purported interim U.S. Attorney what she was “getting wrong,” and Ms. Halligan replied: “Honestly, so much. I can’t tell you everything but your reporting in particular is just way off. I had to let you know.”

[snip]

These extrajudicial statements and prejudicial disclosures by any prosecutor, let alone one purporting to be the U.S. Attorney, run afoul of and violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Federal Regulations, this Court’s Local Rules, various rules of ethical and professional responsibility, and DOJ’s Justice Manual.

[snip]

Ms. Halligan’s initiation of contact, and then repeated exchanges, with the journalist—a mere two days after filing charges—appear to have violated several of the above-cited rules and codes of professional conduct. As the purported chief law enforcement officer for this District, as well as the individual who alone presented evidence to the grand jury in Alexandria and signed the two-count indictment of Attorney General James, 12 Ms. Halligan should know that she is prohibited by the federal, local, and Department rules governing extrajudicial statements and media contacts from engaging with a journalist about the substance and merits of a charged criminal case and the purported strength of the evidence put before a grand jury. [my emphasis]

It describes how even someone with absolutely no prosecutorial experience like Lindsey should know basic rules.

No prosecutor is exempt from following those rules, but they should be followed to the letter by anyone trying to lead a prosecutor’s office. Rather than follow DOJ’s rules protecting non-public, sensitive information obtained in connection with a criminal case and investigation from disclosure, Ms. Halligan opted to use an encrypted app to text with a journalist and discuss the case, certain evidence, and her views on the strength of the charges brought, while ignoring any concerns of prejudice to the defendant, a fair trial, and rules against extrajudicial statements and pretrial publicity.

It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation. While the oftquoted phrase “the bell cannot be unrung” is true for that which has already occurred, the Court can require the government to follow the law going forward by entering Attorney General James’ requested Order and preventing further disclosures of investigative and case materials, and of statements to the media and public, concerning this case and any parties or witnesses.

It lists the many rules Lindsey broke:

  • Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)
  • 28 C.F.R. § 50.2
  • A variety of local rules, starting with Local Criminal Rule 57.1, Free Press – Fair Trial Directives
  • American Bar Associations Model Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
  • Various parts of the Justice Manual, starting with Justice Manual (JM) 1-7.100

And then there are three footnotes which, as footnotes often do, have the meat of the argument.

Though the body of the motion does not mention Federal Records Act, Footnote 11 notes that Attorney General James will pursue the apparent violation of 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (violations of which require disciplinary action) “with the appropriate offices.”

11 In addition to apparently violating the rules addressed in this section, Ms. Halligan admitted in her exchanges with the journalist to a likely violation of the federal records laws and rules around using unapproved electronic messaging accounts. See 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (restricting officer or employee of an executive agency from sending messages using a non-official electronic messaging account). Ms. Halligan acknowledged she was using an unofficial messaging application, Signal, with its “disappearing messages” feature enabled and set to automatically delete after eight hours. Trying to delete the paper trail of improper communications does not mean they did not occur. For this reason, Attorney General James also asks the Court to order government attorneys and agents involved in this case to follow relevant laws around records retention, and to impose a litigation hold preventing the deletion or destruction of any records or communications having anything to do with the investigation and prosecution of this case. Attorney General James will pursue this apparent violation of the law with the appropriate offices.

As for the grand jury secrecy violations, Footnote 5 notes that a court can prosecute or hold someone in contempt for violating grand jury secrecy.

5 The government can and does prosecute knowing violations of Rule 6(e) pursuant to district courts’ contempt powers under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), as well as pursuant to multiple felony criminal statutes. See Justice Manual, CRM 156 (observing that disclosure of “grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation . . . may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503,” and that an individual who “improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641”) (collecting cases).

But, Footnote 6 describes, Attorney General James is not asking for that kind of relief — that is, prosecution.

6 Attorney General James is not at this time formally moving for relief pursuant to FRCrP 6(e).

At least, “not at this time.”

And honestly, Lindsey may not be the real target here. One of the things Lowell requests is a log of all contact between “any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media” on this case.

3. Directing government counsel to create and maintain a log of all contact between any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media or press concerning this case.

Lindsey hasn’t been doing the bulk of that. Eagle Ed Martin has.

And because Lindsey blabbed her mouth, Eagle Ed may, as a result, have to catalog all the times he has leaked about this case.

Share this entry

Three Things: Fraud Trial Begins, Newsom’s Pick, Contingent Aid

/259 Comments/in , , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

It’s going to be a rather busy Monday. Grab your poison of choice — second LARGE cup of joe underway here — and let’s get at it.

~ 3 ~

It’s rather sad this needed to be said yet again in reference to Donald Trump:

“No matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law,” James told reporters before entering the courtroom. “The law is both powerful and fragile. And today in court will prove our case.”

But the wretched former guy apparently needs it as the civil fraud trial opens today in New York.

The Trump campaign’s post-debate stunt leaving a bird cage outside fellow GOP candidate Nikki Haley’s hotel room likely encouraged the reminder, on top of Trump’s other egregious behavior including insults about New York AG Letitia James.

The stunt, which followed Trump’s insult on social media saying Haley had a bird brain, didn’t go over well abroad. India’s media took note of this trashy behavior unbecoming a former U.S. president and a current presidential candidate.

One can only wonder if Trump would be both stupid and arrogant enough to pull such a gag on AG James as a dig at the prosecutor.

~ 2 ~

California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom will appoint Laphonza Butler to fill the Senate seat in the wake of Dianne Feinstein’s death.

Butler’s appointment is a statement none of the other possible appointees could make. She’s been president of political action committee EMILY’s List since 2021; the organization’s mission has been to get more women elected to office.

Butler has also been a superdelegate for California during the 2016 election when she supported Hillary Clinton. Originally from Mississippi, Butler has worked as a union organizer, last with SEIU where she worked toward raising the minimum wage and taxing the wealthiest Californians.

In 2018 Butler left the SEIU to join a Democratic communications firm, SCRB (now Bearstar Strategies) where she worked on Kamala Harris’ campaign.

Butler is gay and married; she and her partner have a daughter.

So many boxes checked off by one appointment, so many marginalized and suppressed groups now represented. Worth reading Philip Bump’s graphic-laden piece in WaPo to understand what this means.

~ 1 ~

Americans know Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) this weekend establishing a 45-day extension on the budget. Omitted from the extension was financial aid to Ukraine at a time when Ukraine is preparing ahead of winter warfare against aggressor Russia.

The failure to provide aid in spite of efforts by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is in part the result of ongoing influence operations by Russia targeting GOP members of Congress. Like Trump they have fallen prey to the idea that the US has no interest in Ukraine’s democratic sovereignty and that NATO and the EU likewise should play no role in rejecting Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

But the reasons why financial aid to Ukraine may not have passed with the CR isn’t solely due to hostile foreign influence. It’s also linked to ongoing corruption in Ukraine undermining the nation’s sovereignty while cannibalizing the resources needed to repel Russia and build back infrastructure destroyed by the last 19 months’ war.

Ukraine took a large move toward addressing corruption with its arrest of oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi on September 2. Kolomoyskyi, appointed Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in 2014 after the Euromaidan, had already been blacklisted and indicted by the U.S.

This arrest is only one step Ukraine must take. The Biden administration has continued to press the Zelenskyy administration for more measurable efforts on corruption. Without making more substantial headway, it would be difficult for Ukraine to join the EU let alone NATO. Ukraine can’t become a means to drain EU and NATO resources in peacetime.

Zelenskyy will have to make considerable progress over the next 45 days – for this reason alone the near-shutdown and CR have a beneficial effect since both the Biden’s State Department and Zelenskyy can point to a date toward which both will have to work on corruption together.

It’s all the more important that the U.S. at state and federal level also address domestic corruption. The U.S. can’t make a demand of other democracies to tackle corruption without setting an example.

All the more reason why we need to demonstrate and not merely say no person in this democracy is above the law.

~ 0 ~

This is an open thread.

Share this entry

Drive for Show, Putt for Dough, Cheat for Tax Deductions

/136 Comments/in /by

[NB: Check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I swear every time I think I’ve met the limit of repulsion for Trump, I meet a new threshold.

You’re doubtless aware of the New York Attorney General’s Motion to Compel against The Trump Organization, Inc.; Seven Springs LLC; Allen Weisselberg; Eric Trump; Charles Martabano; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (MLB); Sheri Dillon; Donald J. Trump; Ivanka Trump; and Donald Trump, Jr. in relation to investigation of “fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions.”

Martabano is a real estate attorney; MLB is a tax attorneys practice which sought to cut ties with Trump; Sheri Dillon has been a partner at MLB working on the Trump account. The rest of the named you are likely familiar with from previous news and posts.

This motion is only in relation to a civil action by NYAG Letitia James; the District Attorney of the County of New York (DANY) Alvin Bragg is conducting a parallel criminal investigation.

I’ve written before about Trump National Golf Club Westchester and the generally scammy and scummy way Trump and Trump org treated the community of Briarcliff where the course is located.

NYAG’s motion opened up a new can of angry bees from a location I haven’t looked at previously because it wasn’t a Trump golf course resort.

Seven Springs is an example of a golf course which didn’t happen, and what Trump did to try and keep the property while paying out as little as possible to do so.

This sounds relatively harmless; who doesn’t try to keep their expenses down?

Except Seven Springs is yet another example of Trump’s lousy judgment and his externalizing his failures onto others.

~ ~ ~

This is Seven Springs as it was back when it was owned by Eugene and Agnes Meyer (also known as the parents of Washington Post’s former publisher Katharine Graham née Meyer). It was built for the Meyers in 1915 for what then was an unfathomable amount of money – $2 million for a little over 28,000 square feet. (Note the rows of young trees planted at the top of the photo as well as the trees to the right side which follow the embankment to the Byram Lake Reservoir.)

(source: Histree.com)

Agnes Meyer died in 1970; under the successor Meyer Foundation, Seven Springs was then used as a conference center by Yale University. In 1984 the foundation cut its ties with Yale and gifted the property to Rockefeller University.

In 1995 – three years after his divorce from his first wife Ivana and a year before he bought the former Briar Hall Golf and Country Club in Westchester – Trump bought Seven Springs from Rockefeller University

Trump originally planned to develop the property into a golf course. A number of architectural design firms worked competitively on plans over a handful of years.

But nothing came of the effort for a number of reasons, the biggest barrier being the approval of the local community and his neighbors.

This is Seven Springs as it appears on Google Maps in satellite view. It is located almost half way between two golf courses – the Mt. Kisco Country Club (opened in 1928) and the Summit at Armonk (opened in 1961).

Mt. Kisco Country Club at upper left; the Summit at Armonk at lower right; Seven Springs in center to left of Byram Lake Reservoir. (source: Google Maps)

The addition of a Trump course at Seven Springs would mean three golf courses inside less than a 10-mile radius. Seven Springs is located on undulating terrain with granite underneath and wetlands on the property, making development extremely complicated and pricey.

Surface water from Seven Springs acreage drains into the Byram Lake Reservoir which provides drinking water for the Mt. Kisco community; a new golf course with all its lawn chemicals and additional automobile traffic dropping gasoline, oil, and more would increase pollutants in the reservoir. One can understand the community’s reluctance to approve a Trump course when there has already been one nearby for decades; the community knows just how much a golf course can affect the reservoir.

The property also abuts the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Nature Preserve immediately to the south which is owned by The Nature Conservancy. It is undeveloped woodlands overlooked by the 28,000 square foot house at Seven Springs.

~ ~ ~

This is what pissed me off.

Trump had to have known when he bought Seven Springs that the nature preserve which had once been part of the Meyers’ 1000-acre holding was next door to the immediate south of the estate. One of the tentative plans for a golf course snugged up to the north boundary of the preserve.

Once Trump finally gave up on this course after stringing along star-struck course developers for years, he decided he would pursue real estate development, tentatively subdividing Seven Springs to build up to 14 McMansion-sized homes.

But he apparently wanted or needed a through way across the 213 acres for both the purposes of development and for the future home owners.

He sued The Nature Conservancy and the community for an easement to build a road — extending Oregon Road which leads to Seven Springs along the drive on the property and then through the nature preserve over an unpaved path to where Oregon Road begins again south of the preserve.

Again, Trump had to have known when he bought the 213-acre parcel that it did not include an easement into/through the nature preserve. An unpaved path from Seven Springs into the preserve once existed, but a gate had been installed in 1990 between Seven Springs and the preserve. Rockefeller University had known about a previous easement but allowed it to expire during its ownership of Seven Springs.

The easement was extinct, demised, non-extant, and even more dead because Trump had allowed more than 10 years to pass between purchasing Seven Springs and suing for an easement.

And yet in August 2006 Trump went to court to get his way, costing The Nature Conservancy and the community time and money to fight off his demand for an easement and road through pristine woodlands because he didn’t have the goddamned foresight to see the Seven Springs property was problematic as golf course and residential development when he bought it in 1995.

Never mind the fact the course would be in competition with two well-established courses.

~ ~ ~

Now it gets messy.

Because he can’t develop the property at all without some accommodation for a road and the neighbors and community aren’t happy but he wants to hang onto the property for his family’s use, Trump pursued tax deductions.

It’s not clear from the NYAG’s motion when Trump began pursuit of a tax deduction for a 150-acre conservation easement on Seven Springs property. In exchange for promising not to develop property, Trump’s organization obtained a $5 million tax credit from 2014 to 2018 for Seven Springs and Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles combined.

He also pursued a very similar conservation easement tax deduction at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles worth multiple millions in tax credits. The land set aside from development was used as a driving range – no buildings constructed, no fairways or greens, just a patch of mowed lawn for practice shots but still part of the golf course business, and surely not open to the public for free. This tax deduction, too, is being examined by NYAG.

Which part of the 213-acre Seven Springs property did he set aside to conserve?

The part which had been cleared of trees planted by the Meyers?

The part which has been cleared of trees and brushed out down the slope to the Byram Lake Reservoir, which realistically can’t be developed anyhow because of that slope?

The part which couldn’t be developed because of the lack of local approvals and the road he couldn’t add?

MOUNT KISCO, NY – SEPTEMBER 30 2020: President Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Mount Kisco, New York, seen here Sept. 30, 2020.
(Johnny Milano for The Washington Post)

Which is the question at the heart of NYAG’s investigation into Seven Springs: how can Trump place a value on the 150-acre conservation easement for a tax deduction based on high-end residential development, when it couldn’t be developed?

How can a permanent swath of lawn punctuated with trees be the same value as new McMansion construction?

It’s not worth roughly $2-3 million a year in tax deductions on the face of it.

~ ~ ~

Another really irritating part of this beyond the pudgy orange weasel himself is the absence of the Internal Revenue Service and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. How did this scofflaw get away with millions of dollars in sketchy tax deductions all this time?

This situation should never have gotten this far out of hand; the first time a taxpayer, human or corporate, takes multi-million tax deductions on conservation easements, that’s the time an agent from either the IRS or the state tax authority physically inspects the property and investigates its backstory to ensure it’s a legitimate conservation easement.

But like everything else Trump has gotten away with so far, the right authorities to deal with him at the time he violated a law or regulation failed to do their duty and the public has no idea why.

If I took a multi-million tax deduction on a conservation easement this year, you can bet I’d be sucked into an audit as fast as you can blink.

Once NYAG and DANY are done with their investigations, local, state, and federal governments need to look at what triggers should set off audits and investigations because whatever they’re currently relying on isn’t working.

$2-3 million is one hell of a lot of tax revenue which could have paid for many public services in New York State and beyond.

And I haven’t even mentioned the other Trump properties in New York though I’ve written about them before.

Nor have I mentioned the easement lawsuit and the creation of conservation easements for tax purposes occurred while Trump was appearing in The Apprentice, kitted out and scripted to look as if he was a successful, honest businessman and real estate developer season after season.

~ ~ ~

Eric Trump, he of 500-plus invocations of the Fifth Amendment under questioning by NYAG, said of Seven Springs, “It was home base for us for a long, long time…”

Yeah? Well, all your base are belong to us if Seven Springs ends up seized for taxes.

Seriously, fuck this base.

Share this entry