Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 0Order.pdf

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80202

Petitioners:
NORMA ANDERSON, MICHELLE PRIOLA, CLAUDINE CMARADA, KRISTA KAFER, KATHI WRIGHT, and CHRISTOPHER CASTILIAN

v.

Respondent:

JENA GRISWOLD, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State

and

Intervenors:
COLORADO REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE and DONALD J. TRUMP

Case No.: 2023CV32577
Division: 209

FINAL ORDER

[admin]

Amici Curiae Brief of Former Officials in Five Republican Administrations, et al, supporting appellee and affirmance
United States of America, Appellee, v. Donald J. Trump, Appellant.
USDC District of Columbia, No. 23-3228
by Matthew W. Edwards
December 12, 2023

ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED

NO. 23-3228

IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Appellant.
____________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________________

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF FORMER OFFICIALS IN FIVE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, ET AL., SUPPORTING APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE

December 12, 2023

Matthew W. Edwards
D.C. Bar No. 992036
1300 19th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 530-3314
medwards@ainbanklaw.com

Nancy A. Temple
Katten & Temple, LLP
209 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com

Richard D. Bernstein
D.C. Bar No. 416427
1875 K Street NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20006
(301) 775-2064
rbernsteinlaw@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), amici curiae submit this certificate as to parties, rulings, and related cases.

A. Parties and Amici

The parties are Donald Trump and the United States of America. The amici are set forth in Appendix A to this brief. Counsel is not aware of any other amici who, on the immunity issue, participated in the District Court or intend to participate in this Court.

B. Rulings Under Review

References to the rulings at issue appear in this brief. The rulings by District Court Judge Chutkan under review are District Court Docket Numbers 171 and 172.

C. Related Cases

D.C. Cir. Docket No. 23-3190 was an appeal from an earlier order of the District Court concerning extrajudicial statements. D. Ct. Dkt. 105.

December 12, 2023

/s/ Richard D. Bernstein

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
CASES………………………………………………………………………….. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………. ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………… iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ……………………………………… 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………….. 1
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………… 7
I. A President Who Loses Re-Election But Makes Efforts
To Stay Beyond His Term Is Attempting To Violate The Executive Vesting Clause………………………………… 7
II. Absolute Immunity Does Not Protect A President’s Use Of Criminal Conduct To Alter Presidential Election
Results………………………………………………..………… 11
A. Protecting The Presidency Designed By Article II
Requires Rejecting Absolute Immunity For Criminal
Efforts To Overturn Presidential Election Results….. 11
B. Under Former President Trump’s View Of Absolute Immunity, A Future President Could Disregard
Current Criminal Restraints Against Using The
Military To Alter Election Results……………………… 19
C. Rejecting Absolute Immunity Would Not Prevent
Presidents From Vigorously Challenging Election
Results……………………………………………………….. 26
CONCLUSION…………………………………………… ……………… 29 USCA Case #23-3228

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Blassingame v. Trump, No. 22-5069, 2023 WL 8291481 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2023)
........................................................................ 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 27, 28
Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (2000) ................................................................................ 4
Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020) .................................................................... 17, 19
Dahda v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1491 (2018) ............................................................................ 5
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) ............................................................................ 5, 8
Jenkins v. Washington Convention Center, 236 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 5, 15
Meza v. Renaud, 9 F.4th 930 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .................................................................. 4
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) .............................................................................. 4
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) .......................................... 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19
Schweitzer v. Hogan, 457 U.S. 569 (1982) ................................................................................ 5
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) .......................................................................... 17
Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020) .................................................................... 20, 22
Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27 (1984) .................................................................................. 5
Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) .................................................................... 13, 14
United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) ....................................................... 9, 11
Statutes
3 U.S.C. § 1 .............................................................................................. 21
3 U.S.C. § 7 ........................................................................................
10 U.S.C. § 10106 .................................................................................... 21
10 U.S.C. § 12405 .................................................................................... 21
18 U.S.C. § 2(a) ........................................................................................ 20
18 U.S.C. § 2(b) ........................................................................................ 21
18 U.S.C. § 593 .................................................................................. 20, 21
18 U.S.C. § 1385 ...................................................................................... 21
Rules
D.C. Cir. R. 32(e)(1) ................................................................................. 31
D.C. Cir. Rule 32(e)(2) ............................................................................. 31
Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) ........................................................................... 31
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) ........................................................................... 31
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) ........................................................................... 31
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) ...................................................................... 31
Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) ................................................................................ 31

Other Authorities

J. Alemany, J. Dawsey, and T. Hamburger, Talk of martial law, Insurrection Act draws notice of Jan. 6 Committee,
Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2022)………………………………………….25
John Danforth, et al., Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election,
(July 2022)……………………………………………………………………28
J. Elliot ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions
(2d ed. 1888)…………………………………………………………………….8
M. Farrand ed., Records of the Federal Convention (1911)………………7
Michael Flynn to Newsmax TV: Trump Has Options to Secure Integrity of 2020 Election (Dec. 17, 2020) https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump- ... ........24
D. Forte, Presidential Term, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1,
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/# ... ......9-10
Gardner & H. Bailey, Ex-Trump allies detail effort to overturn election in Georgia plea videos, Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2023)……….. 10-11
Jonathan Karl, Tired of Winning, (2023)………………………………… 25
B. Swan, Read the emails showing Trump allies’ connections to voting machine seizure push, Politico (Feb. 9, 2022)………………………… 23
U.S. Army Rejects Using ‘Martial Law’ on Election Fraud, Newsmax (Dec. 19, 2020), https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/elect ... ........... 24
Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)……………………….………… 12
Lin Wood to Newsmax TV: Trump Should Declare Martial Law
(Dec. 12, 2020),https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/
lin-wood-martial-law-georgia-bradraffensperger/2020/12/12/id/
1001228/…………………………………………………………………………23

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici listed in Appendix A include former officials who have worked in five Republican administrations from Presidents Nixon to George W. Bush, served as elected Republican officials, are constitutional scholars, and others who support a strong Presidency.1 Reflecting their experience, amici have an interest in a strong Presidency where each elected President serves only the term or terms to which he or she has been elected. Amici speak only for themselves personally, and not for any entity or other person.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Rejection of absolute immunity in this case is essential to protecting Article II’s design of the Presidency itself. Former President Trump has argued that if absolute immunity does not protect his alleged criminal conduct in this case,2 then necessarily every former President may be prosecuted for exercising supervisory and policy responsibilities, firing Cabinet members, allegedly lying in communications to Congress, or using lethal force abroad. See D. Ct. Dkt. No. 122, at 12-15. This is a vast overstatement for a number of reasons. These reasons include that federal criminal statutes require mens rea and particular acts.

1 Amici state that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no entity, aside from amici and their counsel, made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 In this brief, “criminal conduct” refers to conduct that meets every required element of a federal criminal statute, including mens rea.

This amici brief demonstrates another reason. One of the bases to affirm focuses on the specific category of crimes alleged against the former President here—engaging in criminal conduct in post-election efforts to subvert the presidential election results. None of the former President’s hypotheticals about prosecutions in other contexts involves an outgoing President’s criminal efforts to prevent what Article II mandates—the vesting of the authority and functions of the Presidency in the next, lawfully-elected President.

A core allegation of the Indictment is that Mr. Trump knew that it was false to say there had been “outcome-determinative voting fraud in the [2020] election,” but nonetheless engaged in criminal lies and conspiracies “to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power.”3 Under these allegations, former President Trump’s criminal conduct was directed to usurping the authority and functions of the Presidency for the current term to which President Biden was legitimately elected. That constitutes an alleged effort to violate Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, also called the Executive Vesting Clause. That is an attack on Article II’s very design for the Presidency itself.

3 Indictment (D. Ct. Dkt. No. 1), ¶¶ 2, 4, 7-8; see also, e.g., id. at ¶¶10-13, 15, 19-20, 22, 25, 29-33, 35-37, 41, 45-46, 50, 52, 56, 64, 66-67, 70, 74, 77, 81, 83, 86, 90, 92, 99-100, 102, 104, 116, 118. Amici do not address any defense former President Trump has asserted or may assert, other than absolute immunity.

Former President Trump’s alleged effort to usurp the Presidency presents an especially weak case for extending the doctrine of presidential immunity to a criminal case. The last thing presidential immunity should do is embolden Presidents who lose re-election to engage in criminal conduct, through official acts or otherwise, as part of efforts to prevent the vesting of executive power required by Article II in their lawfully-elected successors. The scope of immunity proposed by former President Trump would turn Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), on its head by encouraging the greatest possible threat of “intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,” id. at 754 — a losing President’s efforts to usurp the authority and functions of a duly-elected successor President.

The District Court rejected former President Trump’s argument that a President’s absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts under Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), also applies to federal criminal prosecution of a former President. D. Ct. Dkt. No. 171. Amici agree with this ruling. Amici also agree with Blassingame v. Trump, No. 22-5069, 2023 WL 8291481 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Blassingame”), that President Trump “engaged in his campaign to win re-election – including his post-election efforts to alter the declared results in his favor – in his personal capacity as presidential candidate, not in his official capacity as sitting President.” E.g., id. at *2 (emphasis added).

One factor on which the District Court relied was that it “would betray the public interest” to give a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” D. Ct. Dkt. No. 171, at 24-25. This amici brief will demonstrate that this ground by itself provides one of the bases to affirm. See Meza v. Renaud, 9 F.4th 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (on a “legal question . . . [,] we generally may affirm on any ground supported by the record”).4 Under this basis, this Court should affirm regardless of whether there may be presidential immunity for official acts in some other criminal contexts and whether any of the alleged criminal conduct of former President Trump may be an official act.

Preservation of the Presidency designed by Article II requires rejection of immunity from prosecution for a President’s use of criminal conduct in efforts to alter declared election results, whether that conduct consists of acts as a candidate, official acts, or both. Here, for example, the former President argues that he was acting officially when he allegedly conspired to commit criminal conduct by enlisting Department of Justice personnel to make false statements to state officials to support his efforts to overturn declared state election results. Indictment, ¶¶ 70, 75, 78-79, 84. If that conduct qualified for absolute immunity, this would improperly unleash a future President to disregard current criminal statutes and deploy the military in efforts to alter the results of a presidential election. See Part II.B., infra.

4 The District Court’s reliance on attempted usurpation, the Indictment’s allegations of attempted usurpation, and the government’s arguments that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for a former President generally or in this case all provide ample grounds to affirm on the basis that any immunity a former President may have from criminal prosecution does not apply to allegations that he or she engaged in criminal conduct in an attempt to usurp the Presidency. See Dahda v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1491, 1498 (2018) (affirming conviction based “upon an argument that the Government did not make below”); Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 250 & n.5 (2008) (Court may affirm based on a “novel” legal argument “presented for the first time in a brief amicus filed in this Court”); Jenkins v. Washington Convention Center, 236 F.3d 6, 8 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (this “court may affirm the district court on grounds different from those relied upon by the district court”); see also Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27, 29-30 (1984) (affirming based on legal argument that circuit court did not address); Schweitzer v. Hogan, 457 U.S. 569, 585 n.24 (1982) (sustaining district court’s judgment based on a legal argument that was “not presented in the District Court”).

Instead, to deter future attempts to violate the Executive Vesting Clause, this Court should reject Mr. Trump’s claim of an absolute immunity so broad that it would bar prosecution of a first-term President who employed criminal conduct to overturn election results. In this vital context, rejection of criminal immunity for both unofficial and official acts is necessary to protect the “public interest,” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754 n.37, in government by the People that the Executive Vesting Clause guarantees.

The District Court also rejected the former President’s additional argument that a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct while in office unless that President was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Amici agree with that rejection but do not address it in this brief.

ARGUMENT

I. A PRESIDENT WHO LOSES RE-ELECTION BUT MAKES EFFORTS TO STAY BEYOND HIS TERM IS ATTEMPTING TO VIOLATE THE EXECUTIVE VESTING CLAUSE.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

(Emphases added). This Executive Vesting Clause creates the only Presidency we have under our Constitution.

The second sentence of the Clause requires a first-term President who loses re-election to leave office at the end of his term. This was an important selling point during ratification. The Constitutional Convention initially adopted provisions of a draft Constitution that would have elected a President for a single seven-year term and made each President ineligible for re-election. 1 M. Farrand ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 64, 68-69 (1911). The Convention later switched course and framed a Constitution that enabled a President to seek re-election, but the Executive Vesting Clause limited every presidential term to four years.

This major change was explained by Edmund Randolph, who was a delegate at both the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Ratifying Convention.5 Randolph explained to the Virginia Ratifying Convention that, at the Constitutional Convention, his original position was “that the reeligibility of the President was improper.” 3 J. Elliot ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions 485 (2d ed. 1888). He “altered [his] opinion” and subsequently defended the Constitution’s permission for re-election by relying on the mandates of the Executive Vesting Clause. Id. at 485-86. He stated that a sitting President “may [not] hold his office without being reelected. He cannot hold it over four years, unless he be reelected, any more than if he were prohibited [from running].” Id. at 486. Randolph stated that a President who loses re-election is “displaced at the end of the four years” by the Executive Vesting Clause. Id. at 486.

5 At both times, he was also Governor of Virginia. He would later be President George Washington’s first Attorney General and second Secretary of State.

As Chief Justice Marshall put it, “the president . . . , on the expiration of the time for which he is elected, returns to the mass of the people again.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (Marshall, Circuit Justice) (quoted in Blassingame, at *12). As Section 1 of the subsequent Twentieth Amendment reiterated: “The terms of the President and the Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January . . .; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” (Emphases added).

Presidents from John Adams to George H.W. Bush who lost re-election obeyed the Executive Vesting Clause by peacefully transferring the powers of the Presidency to their elected successors. As was written in The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution before the 2020 election: “It should be noted that the four-year limitation is absolute, and every president (no matter how disputed the election results may have been) has always turned the office over to his successor on the appointed day . . . .” D. Forte, Presidential Term, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, available at https://www.heritage.org/constitution/# ... ntial-term.

In contrast, any President who loses re-election, but engages in efforts to usurp the office of the Presidency beyond his four-year term, would be threatening to violate the Executive Vesting Clause in two inseparable ways. First, that President would be threatening to extend the four-year term – and only four years – in which executive power has been vested by election in that President. Second, that President would be threatening to prevent the vesting of the authority and functions of the Presidency in the newly-elected President. These are assaults upon the Presidency created by Article II.

The recent proffer in Georgia of Jenna Ellis, a lawyer for President Trump’s 2020 campaign, describes a stark attempt to violate the Executive Vesting Clause. According to the proffer of Ms. Ellis, on December 19, 2020, she discussed the former President’s numerous court losses with Dan Scavino, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff. A Gardner & H. Bailey, Ex-Trump allies detail effort to overturn election in Georgia plea videos, Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2023).6 According to the proffer video, Mr. Scavino responded: “Well, we don’t care, and we’re not going to leave . . . . [T]he boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.” Id.

6 Available at https://washingtonpost.com/national-security/ 2023/11/13/trump-georgia-case-videos-overturn-2020-election/ (linking to proffer video).

Former President Trump’s immunity appeal in effect argues that a former President who employed criminal conduct in efforts to retain power contrary to the Executive Vesting Clause nonetheless has absolute immunity. Part II of this brief demonstrates one basis why this is wrong.

II. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY DOES NOT PROTECT A PRESIDENT’S USE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT TO ALTER PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS.

A. Protecting The Presidency Designed By Article II Requires Rejecting Absolute Immunity For Criminal Efforts To Overturn Presidential Election Results.

Blassingame, at *1-2, 12-15, recognized that the presidential re-election context disfavors even civil immunity for a President. The presidential re-election context also presents the weakest case for creating any criminal immunity for a former President, including for official acts.

As the District Court stated, former President Trump is charged with criminal efforts to subvert his re-election loss and “usurp the reins of government.” Docket No. 171, at 25. What kind of Constitution would immunize and thereby embolden losing first-term Presidents to employ criminal conduct—through either official or unofficial acts—in efforts to usurp a second term? Not our Constitution with the Executive Vesting Clause’s clear mandate: four years, you lose re-election, you get out, and the Presidency is vested in your successor. Indeed, George Washington’s Farewell Address stated that it would “destroy[]” our constitutional system if “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and usurp for themselves the reins of government.” Washington’s Farewell Address, at 14 (1796).7 Nothing in our Constitution, or any case, supports former President Trump’s dangerous argument for criminal immunity.


Nixon v. Fitzgerald addressed immunity from civil damages for firing a federal employee. The plaintiff did not and could not allege that his firing had anything to do with presidential election results. The reasoning of Nixon v. Fitzgerald was that the Court “must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served [by civil damages] against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” 457 U.S. at 754. The Court cautioned that “[ i]n defining the scope of an official’s absolute privilege, . . . the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purposes.” Id. at 755.

7 Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO ... sdoc21.pdf.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald reserved deciding whether presidential absolute immunity applies at all in the criminal context, much less in which cases. So did Blassingame. See 2023 WL 8291481, at *2 (not addressing “whether and when a President might be immune from criminal prosecution”). Nixon v. Fitzgerald explained that this reservation was because at least one side of the requisite balancing would carry different weight: “[t]he Court has recognized . . . that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754 & n.37.

In Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), then-sitting President Trump sought an immunity from a grand jury subpoena concerning conduct outside his official duties. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence reiterated that a court must balance interests when a sitting or former President seeks an immunity in a new context. In that case, the Court had to “balance” the “interests of the criminal process and the Article II interests of the Presidency.” Id. at 2432. In Vance, as in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, “the Article II interests of the Presidency” were entirely on the side of the sitting or former President.

In marked contrast to those cases and the hypotheticals relied upon in the former President’s briefs below, the current case involves a prosecution for a President’s alleged criminal conduct that threatened the most serious “intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754. That is, an outgoing President allegedly engaged in criminal efforts to usurp the functions and authority of a lawfully-elected successor President. In this new and different context, protecting Article II’s Executive Vesting Clause is vital. Here, both the interests of the criminal process and protecting the Article II interests of the Presidency support legal accountability and oppose absolute immunity.

To be clear, amici are not advocating individual case-by-case balancing. This case presents an entirely different category that Nixon v. Fitzgerald did not and could not decide – immunity that would encourage a President to employ criminal conduct to usurp the Presidency itself. Nixon v. Fitzgerald addressed only the category where a President allegedly injures “individuals” who sue for damages. Id. at 754 n.37.

There is a fundamental difference between the category of Nixon v. Fitzgerald and the category of this case as to which side has the support of the Article II interests of the Presidency. A village is not saved by destroying it. So too, the functions and authority of the elected Presidency would be imperiled—not preserved—by an immunity so boundless that it would encourage Presidents who lose as candidates for re-election to employ criminal conduct in efforts to prevent the Presidency’s functions and authority from being vested in their lawfully-elected successors.

Even assuming presidential immunity might appropriately be applied to some categories of criminal prosecutions, immunity should not extend to the particular category at issue here. The Executive Vesting Clause uniquely protects the Presidency by specifying who is vested with executive powers. Under the “balance” of interests approach in Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Vance, supra at 13-14, the interests supporting a criminal prosecution of a former President could not be stronger than in the category of cases that protects Article II’s assignment of “who” is vested with executive powers. Although amici believe that the balance of interests also plainly opposes absolute immunity in a criminal category about “how” executive powers were executed, the Executive Vesting Clause provides an independent basis for denying immunity in the “who” category of criminal cases.

First, the “who” category protects the Presidency itself. Presidential immunity is designed to protect Article II interests, including enabling a decisive and even bold President in the execution of his or her powers. But with respect to the Executive Vesting Clause, there are powerful Article II interests against immunity. This is because Article II itself is deeply concerned with ensuring that “who” is President is the person elected pursuant to Article II, not the person self-servingly determined by a sitting President. “The presidency itself has no institutional interest in who will occupy the office next.” Blassingame, at *13 (emphasis added). There is thus no constitutional value in encouraging bold and decisive official or unofficial acts by a President to seize control of the office beyond the term to which he or she has been elected.

Second, the “who” category protects Article II’s design for presidential elections. To start, the Executive Vesting Clause ensures government by the People by mandating that a first-term President leaves at the end of a four-year term when the People have elected someone else for the next term.8 As the Supreme Court recently held, “[t]o justify and check” the President’s “unique [authority] in our constitutional structure,” Article II “render[s] the President directly accountable to the people through regular elections.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2203 (2020). The paramount public interest against executive tyranny is antithetical to creating an absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that is so broad that it would immunize a President who loses re-election but uses criminal conduct in efforts to overturn the presidential election results.

Moreover, part and parcel of Article II’s design for the Presidency is specifying which officials determine the presidential election results. The Executive Vesting Clause requires the President “be elected, as follows . . . ” (Emphasis added). Under the immediately following Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article II, state law officials determine which candidate won each state. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, as reiterated by the Twelfth Amendment, Congress and the Vice President have a narrow role concerning the counting of electoral votes.

8 Every state has exercised its Article II powers to choose the popular vote as the manner to elect a President. See Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2321-22 (2020).

It is logical to conclude that one key reason Article II did not assign even a ceremonial role to a President concerning presidential election results is that a President might try to avoid the ignominy of electoral defeat through dishonesty or intimidation. It would turn Article II on its head if absolute immunity were so broad that it encouraged a President to engage in criminal conduct by deceiving or intimidating the officials to whom, unlike the President, Article II assigns duties concerning presidential election results. As Blassingame concluded, under Article II, “‘every practicable obstacle’ was imposed to prevent ‘cabal, intrigue and corruption’ from giving an incumbent President a structural electoral advantage.” Blassingame, supra, at *12 (quoting Federalist No. 68, at 459 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961)).

Third, because the “who” category protects Article II’s design for the Presidency and presidential elections, it is not germane to this criminal case that “an effort by one branch to interfere in another branch’s sphere” is an indicator of official conduct. Blassingame, supra, at *19 (emphasis added). It is to protect the Presidency itself—not another branch— that there should be no immunity from prosecution for a President’s criminal efforts to violate the Executive Vesting Clause, whether through official or unofficial acts. The “public interest,” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754, could not be higher in criminal prosecutions that preserve and defend the provisions of Article II that design the Presidency itself and presidential elections. Enforcing those provisions is essential to fulfilling both Article II’s design and “the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.” Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2328 (2020).

Fourth, the “who” category involves the narrowest sliver of potential criminal cases. Thus, unlike in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, recognizing the inapplicability of presidential immunity here would not even arguably “subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful.” 457 U.S. at 756.

B. Under Former President Trump’s View Of Absolute Immunity, A Future President Could Disregard Current Criminal Restraints Against Using The Military To Alter Election Results.

The Indictment alleges that former President Trump “attempted to use the Justice Department to make knowingly false claims of election fraud to officials in the targeted states through a formal letter under the Acting Attorney General’s signature” that urged “the targeted states to replace legitimate Biden electors with the Defendant’s.” Indictment, ¶¶70, 75. See also id. ¶¶78-79, 84. The former President has argued these were official acts because an Attorney General “is appointed by and reports to the President.” D. Ct. Dkt. No. 74, at 33. Under this reasoning, armed with absolute immunity, a future President would be incentivized to enlist the Secretary of Defense to deploy the military to support efforts to overturn that President’s re-election loss. Just like the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense is appointed by and reports to the President.

Absent absolute immunity, current criminal statutes deter a President’s use of the military to alter presidential election results. In addition to the statutory provisions underlying the Indictment, 18 U.S.C. § 593, for example, makes it a crime when “an officer or member of the Armed Forces of the United States . . . imposes or attempts to impose any regulations for conducting any general or special election in a State, different from those prescribed by law, or . . . interferes in any manner with any election officer’s discharge of his duties.”9

9 A presidential election is actually an election in each of the 50 states. See Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020) (one state has no “judicially cognizable interest in in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”); 3 U.S.C. § 1 (“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on election day, in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day.”).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), a President would commit a crime if that President “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures” commission of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 593 (emphasis added); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) (criminalizing “[w]hoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States”) (emphasis added)); § 371 (criminalizing conspiracy “to commit any offense against the United States”). In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 makes it a crime when anyone “willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws” except “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”10

10 Statutes like 18 U.S.C. §§ 593 and 1385 that govern the federal military services apply to “[m]embers of the National Guard called into Federal service.” 10 U.S.C. § 12405; see also, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 10106 (“The Army National Guard while in the service of the United States is a component of the Army.”).

Absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, however, would encourage a future President to disregard these criminal statutes and deploy the military—or armed agents of the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security—to prevent the counting of votes in an unfavorable county or of a certain type (such as mail-in ballots) by seizing ballots or voting machines. Such absolute immunity also would encourage that President to use the military or armed federal agents to bar physically his or her opponent’s electors from casting their electoral votes on the day and in the place required by 3 U.S.C. § 7 and state law.

These terrifying possibilities are real, not remote. Indeed, after the Supreme Court refused to overturn the 2020 election results in Texas v. Pennsylvania, there was a drumbeat of calls from allies of President Trump for him to deploy the military to remain in power. The next day, on December 12, 2020, Lin Wood appeared on Newsmax and stated: “If the Supreme Court does not act, I think the president should declare some extent of Martial law, and he should hold off an[d] stay the electoral college . . . . [T]he electoral college does not need to meet and vote until we have resolved these [fraud and illegality] issues.” Lin Wood to Newsmax TV: Trump Should Declare Martial Law (Dec. 12, 2020), available at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/lin- ... d/1001228/.

An executive order was drafted and dated December 16, 2020, under which President Trump would have “order[ed]” that “the Secretary of Defense shall seize” voting machines and records, including by using federalized National Guard units. B. Swan, Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines, Politico (Jan. 21, 2022), available at https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/2 ... nes-527572 (linking to draft order). According to Politico, the draft order was created by a lawyer assisting Rudy Guiliani in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. B. Swan, Read the emails showing Trump allies’ connections to voting machine seizure push, Politico (Feb. 9, 2022), available at https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/0 ... n-00007449 (linking to December 16-17, 2020 emails).

On December 16, 2020, former General and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and other allies of former President Trump reviewed the draft order. Id. The next day, Mr. Flynn criticized the Supreme Court and simultaneously called for President Trump to seize voting machines and deploy “military capabilities” to “rerun an election in each of those [swing] states.” Michael Flynn to Newsmax TV: Trump Has Options to Secure Integrity of 2020 Election (Dec. 17, 2020), available at https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump- ... d/1002139/ (linking to video).

In response, on December 18, 2020, the Army’s Chief of Staff and Secretary issued a public statement that “[t]here is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” U.S. Army Rejects Using ‘Martial Law’ on Election Fraud, Newsmax (Dec. 19, 2020), available at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/elect ... d/1002337/. President Trump, however, promptly dispatched the Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office to inform the Acting Secretary of Defense that the public statement of these Army officials “was entirely unacceptable.” Jonathan Karl, Tired of Winning, 131, 133-34 (2023). That evening, President Trump met with Flynn, Guiliani, and others for four hours. Id. at 134.

On January 3, 2021, co-conspirator 4, a Justice Department official, discussed potential use of military force purportedly under the Insurrection Act. Indictment, ¶ 81. On January 15, 2021, Mike Lindell carried notes into a meeting with President Trump that stated “Insurrection Act now . . . martial law if necessary.” J. Alemany, J. Dawsey, and T. Hamburger, Talk of martial law, Insurrection Act draws notice of Jan. 6 Committee, Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2022) (emphasis in quoted notes), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... committee/. As late as January 17, 2021, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that “several [members of the House] are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall [sic] law.” Id.

Even now, the real possibility that absolute immunity might embolden tyrannical conduct by a President logically follows from the discussion in former President Trump’s reply brief below about how, during the dispute over the 1876 election, President Grant’s “official actions [possibly] were criminal.” D. Ct. Dkt. No. 122, at 11-12. The clear import of that brief’s discussion is that, in the future, absolute immunity for official conduct should bar prosecution of a former President who “trailed greatly in the electoral college” and “dispatched federal troops to states to ensure that” the electoral votes of those states were favorably awarded. Id. at 11-13.

If this Court adopts former President Trump’s view of absolute immunity, future first-term Presidents would be encouraged repeatedly to engage in despotic criminal conduct after election day to remain in power illegitimately. In our divided nation, in the last eight presidential re-election campaigns, the incumbent lost four times (1976, 1980, 1992, and 2020), and won competitive races twice (2004 and 2012). No Court should create a presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, even for official acts, that is so vast that it endangers the peaceful transfer of executive power that is mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause.

C. Rejecting Absolute Immunity Would Not Prevent Presidents From Vigorously Challenging Election Results.

Like other presidential candidates, a sitting President’s rights to challenge election results include both the First Amendment rights and access to the courts that candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush exercised in 2000. And, like any candidate, an incumbent President may not be prosecuted for employing means that fall outside criminal statutes, including their mens rea elements. A President merely does not have an additional absolute immunity so over-reaching that it encourages criminal conduct employed in efforts to overturn presidential election results.

Take court challenges for example. Under Blassingame, at *2, not even civil presidential immunity extends to court filings by a sitting President as a candidate seeking to alter presidential election results. The Indictment’s restrained treatment of former President Trump’s many court filings contesting the 2020 election illustrates how, notwithstanding the lack of absolute immunity, many other safeguards—including First Amendment rights, access to the courts, and actus reus and mens rea elements—fully enable a sitting President to make vigorous challenges to election results.

The Indictment acknowledges, for example, that as a candidate, former President Trump was, among other efforts, “entitled to . . . fil[e] lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures.” Indictment, ¶3. The former President and his allies brought 64 court cases concerning vote counting in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, including challenging the counting of mail-in ballots, the counting of votes in counties Joe Biden was winning, voter eligibility, and campaign observer access. See John Danforth, et al., Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, at 3-5 (July 2022), available at http://www.lostnotstolen.org.11 Even though myriad state and federal courts thoroughly rejected both factual allegations and legal assertions in these challenges, see id. at 14-15, 33-35, 44-46, 51-52, 59-63, 68-69 (citing cases), the Indictment does not even mention 62 of these court challenges as a basis for prosecution.12

11 Former Senator John Danforth’s co-authors were former Senator Gordon H. Smith, former Judges Thomas B. Griffith, J. Michael Luttig, and Michael W. McConnell, and Benjamin Ginsberg, David Hoppe, and Theodore B. Olson.

12 The Indictment also does not mention two other failed court challenges by former President Trump. First, the former President moved to intervene in his personal capacity in an original proceeding in the Supreme Court challenging the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. See Blassingame, at *2, 11-12. Second, former President Trump’s campaign pursued an action in federal district court in New Mexico challenging that State’s use of drop boxes for mail-in ballots. See Donald J. Trump Campaign for President, Inc. v. Toulouse Oliver, No. 1:20-cv-02189-MV-JHR (D.N.M.) (filed Dec. 14, 2020).

Only two paragraphs of the Indictment mention court filings. Both filings contained factual statements that allegedly were known by former President Trump to be false and allegedly were part of efforts to subvert Georgia’s election results. On November 25, 2020, former President Trump retweeted about a lawsuit that contained false allegations of “massive election fraud” in voting machine software and hardware, even though former President Trump allegedly had conceded privately that these allegations were unsupported and “crazy.” Indictment, ¶20. And on December 31, 2020, the former President signed a verification of a lawsuit’s allegations after a co-conspirator allegedly had acknowledged that the former President was aware that some of the factual allegations were inaccurate. Indictment, ¶30. The Indictment thus confirms that rejecting absolute immunity does not expose to prosecution here even inaccurate and deeply flawed post-election day court challenges, except where those challenges contained factual statements that the former President allegedly knew were false and were employed as part of a larger scheme of criminal conduct.

CONCLUSION

This Court should affirm.

December 12, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard D. Bernstein
Richard D. Bernstein
D.C. Bar No. 416427
1875 K Street NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 2000
(301) 775-2064
rbernsteinlaw@gmail.com

Matthew W. Edwards
D.C. Bar No. 992036
1300 19th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 530-3314
medwards@ainbanklaw.com

Nancy A. Temple
Katten & Temple, LLP
209 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 663-0800
ntemple@kattentemple.com

Counsel for Amici

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS

1. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5), this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) and D.C. Cir. Rule 32(e)(2) because this brief contains 5,730 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) and D.C. Cir. R. 32(e)(1).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because the brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word 365 with 14-point Century font.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard D. Bernstein

CERTIFICATE OF WHY SEPARATE BRIEF IS NECESSARY

Counsel is aware of no other person, individual or group who sought leave to file in the District Court an amicus brief supporting the government’s opposition to absolute immunity. Counsel likewise is not aware of any other potential amicus brief supporting appellee and affirmance in this appeal. Accordingly, and in light of the expedited schedule for this appeal, it is not practicable for the amici on this brief to file a single brief with unknown other potential amici.

/s/ Richard D. Bernstein

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Richard D. Bernstein, hereby certify that on December 12, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amici Curiae Brief by Former Officials in Five Republican Administrations, et al., in Support of Appellee and Affirmance to be served on counsel of record for the Government and the Defendant listed on the docket via the Court’s ECF system and via electronic mail as follows:

J.P. Cooney
Molly Gulland Gaston
Thomas Windom
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
joseph.cooney@usdoj.gov
Molly.gaston@usdoj.gov
Thomas.windom@usdoj.gov

James Pearce
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CRIMINAL DIVISION APPELLATE SECTION
Department of Justice, Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20530
james.pearce@usdoj.gov

Dean John Sauer
Michael E. Talent
James Otis Law Group
13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300
Chesterfield, MO 63017
John.sauer@james-otis.com
Michael.talent@james-otis.com

William Owen Scharf
will@willscharf.com

Todd Blanche
Emil Bove
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
emil.bove@blanchelaw.com

John F. Lauro
Filzah I. Pavalon
Gregory M. Singer
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa Street, 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
jlauro@laurosinger.com
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
gsinger@laurosinger.com

/s/ Richard D. Bernstein

APPENDIX A LIST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Donald Ayer, Deputy Attorney General, 1989-1990; Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 1986-1988; United States Attorney, Eastern District of California, 1982-1986; Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of California, 1977-1979.

John Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009; Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, The White House, 2001-2005.

Barbara Comstock, Representative of the Tenth Congressional District of Virginia, United States House of Representatives, 2015-2019; Member of the Virginia House of Delegates, 2010-2014; Director of Public Affairs, United States Department of Justice, 2002-2003; Chief Investigative Counsel, Committee on Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives, 1995-1999.

John Danforth, United States Senator from Missouri, 1976-1995; United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 2004-2005; Attorney General of Missouri, 1969-1976.

Mickey Edwards, Representative of the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia, United States House of Representatives, 1977-1993; founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation and former national chairman of both the American Conservative Union and the Conservative Political Action Conference.

1 The views expressed are solely those of the individual amici and not any organization or employer. For each amicus, reference to prior and current position is solely for identification purposes.

Charles Fried, Solicitor General, 1985-1989; Associate Justice, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1995-1999; currently, the Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Stuart M. Gerson, Acting Attorney General, 1993; Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 1989-1993; Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 1972-1975.

John Giraudo, Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 1986-1988; Associate Deputy Secretary of Labor, December 1986-1988.

Peter Keisler, Acting Attorney General, 2007; Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 2003-2007; Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General and Acting Associate Attorney General, 2002-2003; Assistant and Associate Counsel to the President, The White House, 1986-1988.

Edward J. Larson, Counsel, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, United States Department of Education, 1986-1987; Associate Minority Counsel, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives, 1983-1986; formerly University of Georgia Law School Professor; currently Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University.

J. Michael Luttig, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, 1991-2006; Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Counselor to the Attorney General, 1990-1991; Assistant Counsel to the President, The White House, 1980-1981.

Carter Phillips, Assistant to the Solicitor General, 1981-1984.

Alan Charles Raul, Associate Counsel to the President, The White House, 1986-1988; General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, 1988-1989; General Counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1989-1993; Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, 2006-2008.

Paul Rosenzweig, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security, 2005-2009; Office of Independent Counsel, 1998-1999; United States Department of Justice, 1986-1991; currently Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School.

Nicholas Rostow, General Counsel and Senior Policy Adviser to the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, New York, 2001-2005; Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, 1987-1993; Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, 1985-1987; currently, Senior Research Scholar at Yale Law School.

Robert Shanks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 1981-1984.

Christopher Shays, Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Connecticut in the United States House of Representatives, 1987- 2009.

Michael Shepherd, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 1984-1986; Associate Counsel to the President, 1986-87.

Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, 2001-2003; Independent Counsel to the Department of Justice, 1995-1998; United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 1982-1986; currently, John A. Sibley Chair of Corporate and Business Law at University of Georgia Law School.

Stanley Twardy, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, 1985-1991.

Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 2001-2003; Governor, New Jersey, 1994-2001.

Wendell Willkie, II, Associate Counsel to the President, 1984-1985; Acting Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992-1993; General Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989-1993; General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 1985-1988; currently, adjunct Professor of Law at New York University and adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University, 2006-present; announced as forthcoming chaired Professor of Law, Yale Law School.

Richard Bernstein, Appointed by the United States Supreme Court to argue in Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 515 (2000); Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 725 (2016).

[admin]

Proud Boys leader was ‘prolific’ informer for law enforcement
by Aram Roston
Reuters
January 27, 2021
11:45 AM MST
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... KBN29W1PE/

-- Proud Boys Leader Secretly Cooperated With F.B.I. and Police: Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the far-right nationalist group, which is under increasing scrutiny for its role in the Capitol riot, helped to convict more than a dozen people, by Alan Feuer

-- Government's Sentencing Memorandum, USA v. Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Enrique Tarrio, and Dominic Pezzola, USDC, District of Columbia, Case No. 21-CR-175 (TJK), by Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney, 8/17/23

-- ‘A Total Failure’: The Proud Boys Now Mock Trump: Members of the far-right group, who were among Donald Trump’s staunchest fans, are calling him “weak” as more of them were charged for storming the U.S. Capitol, by Sheera Frenkel and Alan Feuer

-- Witness Testimony of Enrique Tarrio before the Select Committee Investigating January 6

-- Questions About the FBI's Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media: The FBI has been manufacturing and directing terror plots and criminal rings for decades. But now reverence for security state agencies reigns, by Glenn Greenwald

-- Facebook's fight club: how the Proud Boys use the social media platform to vet their fighters: Want to join the far-right group the Proud Boys? Simply apply to your nearest regional vetting page on the world’s largest social network, Facebook, by Southern Poverty Law Center

-- New "Fight Club" Ready for Street Violence: A new fight club “fraternity” of young white, pro-Trump men is being formed, its organizers claim, to defend free-speech rights by “Alt-Right” leaders and engage in street fighting, by Bill Morlin

-- Fight Club at 20: A vision of Trump’s United States, David Fincher’s film, starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, was eerily prescient, by Scott Tobias
-- Proud Boys Call For Disguises, Violence At Biden Inauguration, by Michael Stone

-- Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge, by revolver news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, according to a former prosecutor and a transcript of a 2014 federal court proceeding obtained by Reuters.

In the Miami hearing, a federal prosecutor, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and Tarrio’s own lawyer described his undercover work and said he had helped authorities prosecute more than a dozen people in various cases involving drugs, gambling and human smuggling.

Tarrio, in an interview with Reuters Tuesday, denied working undercover or cooperating in cases against others. “I don’t know any of this,” he said, when asked about the transcript. “I don’t recall any of this.”

Law-enforcement officials and the court transcript contradict Tarrio’s denial. In a statement to Reuters, the former federal prosecutor in Tarrio’s case, Vanessa Singh Johannes, confirmed that “he cooperated with local and federal law enforcement, to aid in the prosecution of those running other, separate criminal enterprises, ranging from running marijuana grow houses in Miami to operating pharmaceutical fraud schemes.”

Tarrio, 36, is a high-profile figure who organizes and leads the right-wing Proud Boys in their confrontations with those they believe to be Antifa, short for “anti-fascism,” an amorphous and often violent leftist movement. The Proud Boys were involved in the deadly insurrection at the Capitol January 6.

The records uncovered by Reuters are startling because they show that a leader of a far-right group now under intense scrutiny by law enforcement was previously an active collaborator with criminal investigators.

Washington police arrested Tarrio in early January when he arrived in the city two days before the Capitol Hill riot. He was charged with possessing two high-capacity rifle magazines, and burning a Black Lives Matter banner during a December demonstration by supporters of former President Donald Trump. The D.C. Superior Court ordered him to leave the city pending a court date in June.

Though Tarrio did not take part in the Capitol insurrection, at least five Proud Boys members have been charged in the riot. The FBI previously said Tarrio’s earlier arrest was an effort to preempt the events of January 6.

The transcript from 2014 shines a new light on Tarrio’s past connections to law enforcement. During the hearing, the prosecutor and Tarrio’s defense attorney asked a judge to reduce the prison sentence of Tarrio and two co-defendants. They had pleaded guilty in a fraud case related to the relabeling and sale of stolen diabetes test kits.

The prosecutor said Tarrio’s information had led to the prosecution of 13 people on federal charges in two separate cases, and had helped local authorities investigate a gambling ring.

Tarrio’s then-lawyer Jeffrey Feiler said in court that his client had worked undercover in numerous investigations, one involving the sale of anabolic steroids, another regarding “wholesale prescription narcotics” and a third targeting human smuggling. He said Tarrio helped police uncover three marijuana grow houses, and was a “prolific” cooperator.

[x]
Members of the far-right Proud Boys, including leader Enrique Tarrio (C), rally in support of President Trump to protest against the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, in Washington, November 14, 2020. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Acquire Licensing Rights

In the smuggling case, Tarrio, “at his own risk, in an undercover role met and negotiated to pay $11,000 to members of that ring to bring in fictitious family members of his from another country,” the lawyer said in court.

In an interview, Feiler said he did not recall details about the case but added, “The information I provided to the court was based on information provided to me by law enforcement and the prosecutor.”

An FBI agent at the hearing called Tarrio a “key component” in local police investigations involving marijuana, cocaine and MDMA, or ecstasy. The Miami FBI office declined comment.

There is no evidence Tarrio has cooperated with authorities since then. In interviews with Reuters, however, he said that before rallies in various cities, he would let police departments know of the Proud Boys’ plans. It is unclear if this was actually the case. He said he stopped this coordination after December 12 because the D.C. police had cracked down on the group.

Tarrio on Tuesday acknowledged that his fraud sentence was reduced, from 30 months to 16 months, but insisted that leniency was provided only because he and his co-defendants helped investigators “clear up” questions about his own case. He said he never helped investigate others.

That comment contrasts with statements made in court by the prosecutor, his lawyer and the FBI. The judge in the case, Joan A. Lenard, said Tarrio “provided substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of other persons involved in criminal conduct.”

As Trump supporters challenged the Republican’s election loss in often violent demonstrations, Tarrio stood out for his swagger as he led crowds of mostly white Proud Boys in a series of confrontations and street brawls in Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere.

The Proud Boys, founded in 2016, began as a group protesting political correctness and perceived constraints on masculinity. It grew into a group with distinctive colors of yellow and black that embraced street fighting. In September their profile soared when Trump called on them to “Stand back and stand by.”

Tarrio, based in Miami, became the national chairman of the group in 2018.

In November and December, Tarrio led the Proud Boys through the streets of D.C. after Trump’s loss. Video shows him on December 11 with a bullhorn in front of a large crowd. “To the parasites both in Congress, and in that stolen White House,” he said. “You want a war, you got one!” The crowd roared. The next day Tarrio burned the BLM banner.

Former prosecutor Johannes said she was surprised that the defendant she prosecuted for fraud is now a key player in the violent movement that sought to halt the certification of President Joe Biden.

“I knew that he was a fraudster – but had no reason to know that he was also a domestic terrorist,” she said.

Reporting by Aram Roston in Washington. Editing by Ronnie Greene

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

Federal prosecutors reveal Proud Boys witness was informant
by Michael Kunzelman and Lindsay Whitehurst
March 22, 2023
Published 9:41 PM MST
https://apnews.com/article/proud-boys-e ... 6fb70d93c4

[x]
FILE - Proud Boys members Zachary Rehl, left, and Ethan Nordean, walk toward the U.S. Capitol in Washington, in support of President Donald Trump, Jan. 6, 2021. Federal prosecutors disclosed Wednesday, March 22, 2023, that a witness expected to testify for the defense at the seditious conspiracy trial of former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four associates was secretly acting as a government informant for nearly two years after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a defense lawyer said in a court filing. Carmen Hernandez, a lawyer for Rehl, asked a judge to schedule an immediate emergency hearing and suspend the trial “until these issues have been considered and resolved.” (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors disclosed Wednesday that a witness expected to testify for the defense at the seditious conspiracy trial of former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four associates was secretly acting as a government informant for nearly two years after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, a defense lawyer said in a court filing.

Carmen Hernandez, a lawyer for former Proud Boys chapter leader Zachary Rehl, asked a judge to schedule an immediate emergency hearing and suspend the trial “until these issues have been considered and resolved.” Lawyers for the other four defendants joined in Hernandez’s request.

Hernandez said in court papers that the defense team was told by prosecutors on Wednesday afternoon that the witness they were planning to call to the stand on Thursday had been a government informant.

The judge ordered prosecutors to file a response to the defense filing by Thursday afternoon and scheduled a hearing for the same day, putting testimony in the case on hold until Friday. The U.S. attorney’s office did not immediately comment on the filing.

In her court filing, Hernandez said the unnamed informant participated in “prayer meetings” with relatives of at least one of the Proud Boys on trial and had discussions with family members about replacing one of the defense lawyers on the case. The informant also has been in contact with at least one of the defense lawyers and at least one of the five defendants, Hernandez wrote.

It’s the latest twist in a trial that has been bogged down by bickering between lawyers and the judge and already lasted much longer than expected. Defense lawyers have repeatedly asked the judge in vain to declare a mistrial over a variety of issues they say have been unfair to their clients.

The trial in Washington’s federal court is one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6 attack. Tarrio, Rehl and three other Proud Boys — Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola — are charged with conspiring to block the transfer of presidential power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden after the 2020 election.

Tarrio, a Miami resident, served as national chairman for the far-right extremist group, whose members describe it as a politically incorrect men’s club for “Western chauvinists.” He and the other Proud Boys could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Defense attorneys have argued there is no evidence the Proud Boys plotted to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying Biden’s electoral victory.

Hernandez didn’t name the informant in her court filing, but she said it is somebody who has serving as a “confidential human source” for the federal government since April 2021 through at least January 2023. Prosecutors knew in December that the person was a potential trial witness but didn’t inform defense lawyers until Wednesday that the witness has been a federal informant, she said.

28aaedc35ae748c3ad1f1c34fb2818fc

It’s not the first time the government’s use of informants has become an issue in the case. Defense attorneys have repeatedly pushed to get more information about informants in the far-right extremist group as they try to undermine the notion that the group had a plan to attack the Capital on Jan. 6.

FBI Agent Nicole Miller testified last week that she was aware of two informants in the Proud Boys, including one who marched on the Capital on Jan. 6.

Hernandez said there are “reasons to doubt the veracity of the government’s explanation and justification for withholding information about the (confidential human sources) who have been involved in the case.” She could not immediately be reached for additional comment.

Law enforcement routinely uses informants in criminal investigations, but their methods and identities can be closely guarded secrets. Federal authorities haven’t publicly released much information about their use of informants in investigating the Proud Boys’ role in a mob’s attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter leader. Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Rehl was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia. Pezzola was a Proud Boys member from Rochester, New York.

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Boston contributed to this report.

Whitehurst is a national criminal justice reporter for The Associated Press, based in Washington, D.C. She covers the Justice Department, public safety and legal issues.

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

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal (Excerpt)
Foreknowledge, by revolver news

First, there were only a very small handful of people in the “upper tier leadership” private Telegram chat of the Proud Boys. When the channel was set up on December, 29, 2020, it was just six people, including Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, longtime Proud Boys “thought leader” Joseph Biggs, Proud Boys Auburn chapter head Ethan Nordean, and Proud Boys Philadelphia chapter head Zachary Rehl. That’s four named individuals and two-unnamed.

On December 29, 2020, the Proud Boys Chairman announced the leadership and structure of the Ministry of Self-Defense. The leadership and structure included an “upper tier leadership” of six people, which included Proud Boys Chairman, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl. Later that evening, Donohoe explained the structure with reference to the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. Among other things, Donohoe explained that the MOSD was a “special chapter” within the organization. The “special chapter” was not to have any interaction with other Proud Boys attending the event. Other Proud Boys attending the event were to coordinate with their own chapters and “do whatever you guys want.” [May 13 DOJ filing, pp. 3-4]

After 1/6, it came to light that Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio had been a “prolific” FBI informant for years, and Proud Boys “thought leader” Joseph Biggs had been an FBI informant for several months.

The day before 1/6, the Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, a known FBI informant, was arrested on weapons charges and ordered by a Judge to stay away from D.C.

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the right-wing group the Proud Boys, has been ordered to stay away from Washington, D.C., after he was arrested on vandalism and weapons charges. The ruling comes one day before pro-Trump demonstrations are planned in Washington as Congress convenes to count the Electoral College votes ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

Tarrio was released from custody on Tuesday, but Judge Renee Raymond ordered him to stay away from Washington. Raymond said the government’s request for Tarrio to stay away was reasonable given his prior statements about burning anything associated with Black Lives Matter, Raymond also ordered that Tarrio not possess a firearm or ammunition while in Washington.

Tarrio was arrested Monday after he arrived in Washington on a charge stemming from the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner at a historically Black church. He was found to be in possession of several high-capacity firearms, stemming in felony charges. [CBS]

A full discussion of Tarrio is outside the scope of this piece. For now, we will simply note how remarkably convenient it is that the head of the Proud Boys, a known FBI informant, just happened to get arrested and banned from D.C. the day before the January 6 protest, in which Proud Boys were involved.

What better excuse for the leader not to be present on that fateful day?

Upon Tarrio’s arrest on January 4, the “upper tier leadership” of the MOSD Telegram channel was “nuked” and a channel, “New MOSD” took its place. We now know this top leadership Telegram group included unindicted co-conspirators UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 (as well as Proud Boys North Carolina chapter leader Charles Donahoe).

On January 4, 2021, shortly after Proud Boys Chairman’s arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by D.C. Superior Court, DONOHOE expressed concern that encrypted communications that involved Proud Boys Chairman would be compromised when law enforcement examined Proud Boys Chairman’s phone. DONOHOE then created a new channel on the encrypted messaging application, entitled “New MOSD,” and took steps to destroy or “nuke” the earlier channel. After its creation, the “New MOSD” channel included NORDEAN, BIGGS, REHL, DONOHOE, and a handful of additional members. [DOJ – First Superseding Indictment]

The DOJ cites Person-1 as saying the following:

]Person-1: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
Person-1: It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs
Person-2: Fuck it let them loose
Person-1: I agree . . .

[Bond Motion]

Furthermore, DOJ cites Person-1 as belonging to Proud Boys’ “upper tier leadership”:

A video call was held with prospective members of the MOSD on December 30, 2020. The self-proclaimed leadership of the MOSD introduced the chapter and explained the expectations, including the strict chain of command. As one member (“Person-1”) of the upper tier leadership explained…

[Bond Motion]

This unindicted co-conspirator, Person-1, then explained that all Proud Boys leaders must obey the orders of any person in the senior leadership chat. That means UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 had directorial authority over indicted defendants in the group:

“[Directions] could come from any single person that you see on your screen right now… but the one thing that everyone has to understand, is, yes, you might be getting told things from different people, but it’s all information from the same plan. [Joe] Biggs] is not going to tell you something different than I’m gonna tell you. [Proud Boys Chairman] is not going to tell you something different than Zach [Rehl] is going to tell you. It’s all one operational plan, so don’t get hung up on the delivery. The information is all the same. [Bond Motion]

So if UCC-1, Person-1 and/or Person-2 were undercover informants or agents, note that instruction given by them to other Proud Boys in the chat was to be taken as a direction coming straight “from the top.”

40. On January 4, 2021, at 7:15 p.m., DONOHOE posted a message on various encrypted messaging channels, including New MOSD, which read, “Hey have been instructed and listen to me real good! There is no planning of any sorts. I need to be put into whatever new thing is created… DONOHOE then wrote, “Stop everything immediately” and then “This comes from the top.”

And in fact, these unindicted co-conspirators did appear to override indicted defendants:

41. On January 4, 2021, at 8:20 p.m., an unindicted co-conspirator (“UCC-1”) posted to New MOSD channel: “We had originally planned on divying them up and getting baofeng channels picked out.” [DOJ – First Superseding Indictment]

The next day, UCC-1 did in fact set up and distribute the Baofeng Chinese radio frequency [paragraph 47].

While UCC-1 set up the Chinese radios and walkie-talkie teams, and Person-1 gave operational instructions, Person-2 was repeatedly posting into the senior leadership chat the most inflammatory and inciting comments of anyone in the organization:...

[admin]

Former Trump Voter TURNS AGAINST MAGA, Reveals Their DARK SECRETS
by Ally Sammarco
MeidasTouch
Dec 29, 2023

Former Trump voter Ally Sammarco reveals the dark secrets she learned inside the MAGA cult.



[Ally Sammarco] Okay now
I want to dive in a little more about
some of the dark things that I noticed
during my time with the Republican party
and some things that I realized after
the fact for starters a lot of the
people especially boys and men that I
worked with during that time were very
religious usually they were either
Catholic or Evangelical speaking just
from my experience a lot of those same
men were either closet gay or complete
and total religious Hypocrites they
never ever truly practiced what they
preached and they used the religion to
cover their tracks and to label
themselves as good people.

[Donald Trump] I believe in
God I am Christian I'm a Protestant I'm
very proud of it Presbyterian to be
exact I'm
Presbyterian boy that's down the middle
of the road folks in all fairness I mean
Seventh Day Adventist I don't know about
I have great relationship with God I
have great relationship with uh the
evangelicals and then I go to church a
lot always on Christmas always on Easter
uh always when there's a major occasion
and during the during the Sundays I'm a
Sunday church person I like to do the
right thing where I don't have to
actually ask for forgiveness when we go
in church and and when I drink my little
wine which is about the only wine I
drink and and have my little cracker I
guess that's a form of asking for
forgiveness and I do that as often as
possible because I feel cleansed we were
having fun when I said I drink the wine
I drink I I eat the cracker if I do
something wrong I think I just try and
make it right I don't bring God into
that picture my wife and I pray for you
thank you well I need it probably more
than anybody in this room you can stay
if you want it because you need the
prayer more than I do I think I want to
just pray for Arnold if we can for those
ratings I can understand the Evangelical
to a certain extent saying well maybe
he's not as nice as we want him to be
but they also want to see the country be
great why do you think those voters are
drawn to you well I'm Protestant I'm
Presbyterian which means something maybe
he's not as perfect on the Bible but I
did go to Sunday school for many years I
want to tell you I get sent Bibles by a
lot of people where are all those Bibles
anyhow now well actually we we keep them
in a certain place a very very nice
place my second favorite book of all
time what's my first favorite book The
Bible the Bible is is special the Bible
the more you see it the more you read it
the more incredible it is an Old
Testament guy or a new testament guy uh
probably equal Proverbs the chapter
never Bend to Envy I've had that thing
all of my life where you're people are
bending to Envy 2 Corinthians right 2
Corinthians 3:17 that's the whole ball
game there's no way I would ever do
anything to do negative to a Bible God
is the ultimate I mean God created
this and you know is the Pacific Ocean
right behind us

[Ally Sammarco] So these are guys who
talked about waiting for marriage to
have sex but then weren't or were
intensely homophobic but them pursuing
relationships with other men another one
of the most hypocritical topics was
abortion one man that I knew was
extremely pro-life in public saying
things like women made their choice when
they had sex now they don't have a
choice the same exact guy had his
girlfriend at the time get multiple
abortions because he didn't want to have
any kids of his own if you were once a
Republican or worked for the party I'm
sure you know people like this too the
rot is so deep and it has only grown
since I left I've always said there is a
huge lack of empathy in the Republican
Party problems only become problems when
they affect their own lives they apply
reason and human emotions to their own
situations but don't extend that same
luxury to others it's why Ted Cruz made
excuses for his spontaneous Rendevous to
Cancun Mexico with his kids while the
power grid was out in Texas during an
ice storm but he can't apply that same
rationale to parents and Mexico who
desperately want to bring their kids
over the border for their kids own
safety question.

[Senator Ted Cruz] from the video on the
cell phone was was whether the decision
uh to go was tone de look it was
obviously a mistake and in hindsight I I
wouldn't have done it um I was trying to
be a dad and and all of us have made
decisions when you've got two girls who
have been cold for two two days and
haven't had heat or power and they're
saying hey look we don't have school why
don't we go let's get out of
here I I think there are a lot of
parents that'd be like all right let me
if I can do this great that's what I
wanted to do.

[Ally Sammarco] Or why the party that
preaches Family Values elected a man who
hires porn stars and talks about
grabbing women by the and they
didn't even bat ey I mean hey it's just
locker room talk right that was locker
room talk the self-serving bias wrought
through the party has become more and
more impar after I left.

[Mehdi Hasan] He's accused of
violating the law with his undisclosed
gifts from his billionaire pal he's a
threat to democracy because of his
wife's behavior and his refusal to
recuse and he's morally unfit to sit on
our Supreme Court given the Anita Hill
allegations.

[Ally Sammarco] And partly it was because of
the empathy for humans that have had
different experiences in life that
attracted me to the Democratic party I'm
not saying the Democratic party is
perfect or there's no hypocrisy in the
Democratic party but to me there's
something especially Insidious about
denying rights to people while privately
enjoying those same rights for yourself
it's something that I'm glad that I no
longer personally have to be witnessed
to if you have any comments or questions
comment them below and I'll try to
answer them at the start of my next
video thank you so much
guys thanks so much for watching

[admin]

Roger Stone Spoke With Cop Pal About Assassinating Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler
by Diana Falzone
MediaIte
Jan 8th, 2024, 3:39 pm

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, infamous political operative Roger Stone sat across from his associate Sal Greco at a restaurant in Florida.

At the time, Greco was an NYPD cop working security for Stone on the side. Their conversation, at Caffe Europa in Fort Lauderdale, focused on two House Democrats for whom Stone harbors particular animosity, Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell.

In audio of the conversation obtained exclusively by Mediaite, Stone made threatening comments about the two lawmakers.

“It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

A source familiar with the discussion told Mediate they believed Stone’s remarks were serious. “It was definitely concerning that he was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.

Both Nadler and Swalwell serve on the House Judiciary Committee. At the time of the Caffe Europa conversation, Nadler had announced the committee would be investigating then-President Donald Trump’s decision to commute Stone’s sentence after he was convicted of federal crimes in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

“A jury found Roger Stone guilty,” Nadler wrote on Twitter in July 2020. “By commuting his sentence, President Trump has infected our judicial system with partisanship and cronyism and attacked the rule of law. @House Judiciary will conduct an aggressive investigation into this brazen corruption.”

The source told Mediaite of Stone: “Stone had been at war with Nadler and Swalwell for years. He just hates them.”

“He just wanted to get Trump back into office so these things would stop,” the source added.

Stone was convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress in the Mueller investigation. Prosecutors sought a nine-year prison sentence for the longtime Republican operative, but Trump’s Justice Department reportedly intervened to impose a less severe sentence. Stone’s sentence was eventually commuted by Trump days before reporting to prison.

The intervention from the Justice Department prompted Aaron Zelinsky, the prosecutor and Mueller deputy who led the case against Stone, to recuse himself from the case in protest. Mediaite reported last week that Stone was caught on tape in December 2020 urging Greco to “punish” Zelinsky.

“He needs to be punished,” Stone told Greco in the audio. “You have to abduct him and punish him. That has to be done. It will be easy to abduct him because he is a weakling.”

Stone denied making those comments, claiming they were generated by AI. He has previously claimed videos of his comments are actually “deep fakes.” In response to a request for comment on the remarks aimed at Swalwell and Nadler, Stone said, “Total nonsense. I’ve never said anything of the kind more AI manipulation. You asked me to respond to audios that you don’t let me hear and you don’t identify a source for. Absurd.”

Greco did not deny the comments, but said in a text to Mediaite: “I don’t think your reader is interested in ancient political fodder.”

Greco, who acted as security for Stone and was with the operative during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol soon after the 2020 election, was fired by the NYPD over his association with Stone. An NYPD spokesperson confirmed to Mediaite that Greco was terminated in August 2022.

Nadler and Swalwell did not respond to requests for comment.

[admin]

God Made a Dictator
The Lincoln Project
Jan 16, 2024

God said “I need a man who failed in everything but theft and broken promises to live in a golden palace and convince the poor he serves their needs.” So God made Trump.

The Lincoln Project is a leading pro-democracy organization in the United States — dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy. Our fight against Trumpism is only beginning. We must combat these forces everywhere and at all times — our democracy depends on it.



Transcript

[Narrator] And on the eighth day,
God looked down on his planned paradise and said,
"I need a man to test the will
"and goodness of a free people."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a man who failed in everything
"but theft and broken promises to live in a golden palace
"and convince the poor he serves their needs."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a wicked man to lead the common folk
"with hatred and fear."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a corrupt man who is above the law
"and immune from justice."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a man who will use violence
"to seize power."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a man whose followers will call
"Black white, call evil good and call criminals hostages."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need his political party
"to obey without question and the press fear his wrath."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a cruel man who uses his power
"and position to punish and harm his opposition."
So God made a dictator.
God said, "I need a man who breaks the faith
"of even his most godly followers
"and leads them to idolatry, place him above me."
So God made a dictator.
And then God said, "I sent this man to test you
"and until you cast him down, you have failed."
(soft upbeat music)
So God made a dictator.

[admin]

Capitol Police Investigating Roger Stone Remarks About Assassinating Members of Congress
by Diana Falzone
MediaIte
Jan 16th, 2024, 9:01 am

The Capitol Police are investigating remarks made by pro-Trump political operative Roger Stone discussing the assassination of two prominent House Democrats. A source told Mediaite the FBI is aiding with the investigation.

Last week, Mediaite published an audio recording of the comments, which were made weeks before the 2020 election in a conversation between Stone and his associate, former NYPD cop Sal Greco, about Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

“It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Swalwell or Nadler has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

In a new statement to Mediaite, Swalwell said the comments should be taken seriously by both law enforcement and Congress:

The Roger Stone assassination plot recording may seem like the ravings of a wannabe gangster. It’s not. This is what Trump and his real-life thugs do: they try to intimidate opponents and will always choose violence over voting. Because I’m one of Trump’s loudest critics, Stone put a hit out on me. This threat, and other threats of violence by Trump and his supporters, must be taken seriously by not only law enforcement but also by my colleagues. Both parties, not just Democrats, must condemn this violence. Unity will always be the best antidote against further violence.

Finally, Stone said that I and Trump’s enemies need to ‘get the message.’ Well, I and the voters have a message for Stone and Trump: we are still here and we are not going away until we bury MAGAism and make sure America’s democracy endures.

The FBI, which does not confirm or deny ongoing investigations, declined to comment when reached by Mediaite. The United States Capitol Police did not offer a comment.

Both Swalwell and Nadler serve on the House Judiciary Committee and have their own histories with Stone, who was convicted of federal crimes in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. His sentence was commuted by then-President Trump days before he was set to report to prison.

A few months before the Caffe Europa audio was recorded, Nadler announced the Judiciary Committee would be investigating why Stone’s sentence was commuted by Trump.

Stone has adamantly denied making the comments — even after the audio was published by Mediaite. The infamous political operative claimed the audio was “poorly fabricated AI generated fraud all because I am loyal to [Trump]”.

Stone has previously claimed that comments he made apparently calling for violence that were caught on video by a documentary crew were “deep fakes.”

Greco, who was fired by the NYPD in 2022 over his association with Stone, did not deny the conversation in a statement to Mediaite, saying, “I don’t think your reader is interested in ancient political fodder.”

Mediaite also reported on a conversation between Stone and Greco in which Stone called to “abduct” and “punish” Aaron Zelinsky, the prosecutor who led the case against him as part of the Mueller probe.

[admin]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Jan 18, 2024

A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END EVEN EVENTS THAT "CROSS THE LINE" MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN'T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL "ROGUE COP" OR "BAD APPLE." SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH "GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT." ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DEISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!

[admin]

Reagan-appointed judge warns GOP's 'preposterous' claims about Jan. 6 could pose threat. Judge Royce Lamberth says he's "shocked" that "meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream" as some Republican politicians defend Jan. 6 rioters.
by Ryan J. Reilly
NBC News
Jan. 25, 2024, 3:17 PM MST

WASHINGTON — A Republican-appointed federal judge who has served on the bench for 37 years slammed prominent politicians for their "preposterous" claims about how the courts have handled Jan. 6 cases and their attempts to "rewrite history" about the U.S. Capitol attack, saying such rhetoric could foreshadow future far-right violence.

Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed to the bench by former President Ronald Reagan in 1987, said at a resentencing hearing Thursday that he is "shocked" at how prominent political figures have talked about the convicted criminals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, calling the politicians' remarks "preposterous" and warning that such rhetoric "could presage further danger to our country."

While Lamberth did not refer to the politicians by name, he used quotations from Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga. (who said rioters behaved "in an orderly fashion" like tourists), Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. (who called Jan. 6 inmates "political prisoners"), and Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. (who, echoing former President Donald Trump, called Jan. 6 criminals "hostages"). In 2022, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution referring to the events of Jan. 6 as "legitimate political discourse."

"The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. But in my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream," Lamberth said, according to his prepared remarks.

"I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness,” Lamberth continued before he issued a stark warning: "The Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country."

Lamberth, a former Judge Advocate General Corps captain who served in Vietnam, said he could not "condone the shameless attempts" to misrepresent what happened on Jan. 6. The court, he said, "cannot condone the notion that those who broke the law on January 6 did nothing wrong, or that those duly convicted with all the safeguards of the United States Constitution, including a right to trial by jury in felony cases, are political prisoners or hostages."

Lamberth then made an effort to "set the record straight, based on what I’ve learned presiding over many January 6 prosecutions, hearing from dozens of witnesses, watching hundreds of hours of video footage, and reading thousands of pages of evidence."

"On January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage," he said. "The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. ... This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism."

Lamberth went on to say that it was "a matter of right and wrong" and that it fell to judges to say the actions of those who broke the law on Jan. 6 were wrong.

"The Court does not expect its remarks to fully stem the tide of falsehoods. But I hope a little truth will go a long way," he said.

More than 1,250 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to the Justice Department. More than 700 defendants have entered voluntary guilty pleas, meaning they appeared before judges and admitted under penalty of perjury that they had, in fact, engaged in criminal activity on Jan. 6, according to the Justice Department.

Just this week, Edward Richmond Jr. of Louisiana, who was previously convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing an Iraqi civilian while deployed overseas, was arrested and charged with assaulting law enforcement officers at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Richmond, federal authorities say, used a baton to assault law enforcement officers battling rioters at the lower west tunnel, where some of the most extreme violence of the day took place. Richmond will plead not guilty, said his attorney, John McLindon.

A day after Richmond's arrest, federal authorities on Tuesday arrested Andy Steven Oliva-Lopez, whom online sleuths identified as the man who was photographed and recorded using chemical spray to assault law enforcement officers at the west tunnel on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. It is unclear whether Oliva-Lopez has entered a plea.

[admin]

White House clinic improperly distributed controlled substances during previous administrations, new report says: The investigation by the Pentagon's internal watchdog was prompted by complaints during the Trump administration.
by Megan Lebowitz
Jan. 25, 2024, 7:46 PM MST / Updated Jan. 26, 2024, 8:55 AM MST

WASHINGTON — The White House Medical Unit had “severe and systemic problems” with its pharmacy operations and provided health care to ineligible staffers before the Biden administration, according to a scathing report by the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General.

The multiyear investigation was prompted in 2018 by complaints alleging that a senior military medical officer in the White House clinic had “engaged in improper medical practices.” The probe included on-site visits and focused on a three-year period during the Trump administration, as well as employee interviews dating to 2009.

"The White House Medical Unit dispensed prescription medications, including controlled substances, to ineligible White House staff," said the report, which was released this month.

The unit also kept records for Schedule II drugs — such as fentanyl, hydrocodone, morphine and oxycodone — in the same inventory that housed records for other medications, according to the report, even though federal regulations require them to be kept separate.

The clinic’s handwritten records from the Trump administration “frequently contained errors in the medication counts, illegible text, or crossed out text that was not appropriately annotated,” the report said.

The White House Medical Unit, which consists of multiple clinics in the Washington area, is staffed by military and civilian employees and overseen by the Defense Department.

Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, was the White House physician to Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump before he left in 2018.

A spokesperson for Jackson said in a statement to NBC News that the congressman was not the director of the White House Medical Unit during the timeframe for which the bulk of the records were provided for the report. The spokesperson noted that Jackson was the president's physician under Obama and later the president's chief medical adviser under Trump, and said the latter position, which Jackson assumed in early 2019, was a health care policy role and "had no association or involvement with the White House Medical Unit’s clinical delivery of care."

The inspector general’s report did not name Jackson.

A separate Pentagon inspector general report, from 2021, said Jackson had engaged in “inappropriate conduct” when he was the White House physician.

The White House referred requests for comment to the Defense Department, which did not comment on the report's findings. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The report also said the White House Medical Office spent tens of thousands of dollars during the Trump administration on brand name medications instead of less expensive generic equivalents.

From 2017 to 2019, the unit spent about $46,500 on Ambien, a sleeping medication, which the report says is “174 times more expensive than the generic equivalent.” The clinic also spent nearly $100,000 during that period on Provigil, a stimulant that is “55 times more expensive than the generic equivalent,” the report said.

In 2019, investigators tried to obtain earlier records, but White House Medical Unit officials said they kept pharmaceutical records for only two years, according to the report.

“Without oversight from qualified pharmacy staff, the White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical management practices may have been subject to prescribing errors and inadequate medication management, increasing the risk to the health and safety of patients treated within the unit,” the report said.

It also detailed the dispensing of medication to ineligible White House staff members, which meant some staffers “received free specialty care and surgery at military medical treatment facilities.” The unit also dispensed medications like Ambien and Provigil “without verifying the patient’s identity,” the report said. Part of the report cited interviews with employees who worked in the White House dating to 2009, without specifying when such incidents took place.

The Pentagon IG’s office recommended a series of policy changes, including developing a pharmaceutical oversight plan for the White House Medical Unit, developing procedures for medication storage, prescribing and dispensing, and improving methods for establishing patient eligibility.

The Pentagon agreed with the recommendations, according to a letter attached to the report.