Link, for the whole Breitbart presentation.
With Ramaswamy already there, she joins him in that commitment.
It leaves one thing on my mind. As sweet and clear as moonlight through the pines.
___________UPDATE__________
Having no burning passion to see Trump jailed, while fearing for the nation should he again be elected, clemency would be okay, a pardon would allow mischief.
Haley promises going a step too far.
Yes he has yet to be sentenced. So what's the good news? Well, mixed news. SBF faces a downside even on the good news:
NEW YORK (AP) — A second trial of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried on charges not in the cryptocurrency fraud case presented to a jury that convicted him in November is not necessary, prosecutors told a judge Friday.
Prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in a letter that evidence at a second trial would duplicate evidence already shown to a jury. They also said it would ignore the “strong public interest in a prompt resolution” of the case, particularly because victims would not benefit from forfeiture or restitution orders if sentencing is delayed.
They said the judge can consider the evidence that would be used at a second trial when he sentences Bankman-Fried on March 28 for defrauding customers and investors of at least $10 billion.
Bankman-Fried, 31, who has been incarcerated since several weeks before his trial, was convicted in early November of seven counts, including wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and three conspiracy charges. He could face decades in prison.
Last spring, prosecutors withdrew some charges they had brought against Bankman-Fried because the charges had not been approved as part of his extradition from the Bahamas in December 2022. They said the charges could be brought at a second trial to occur sometime in 2024.
However, prosecutors at the time said that they would still present evidence to the jury at the 2023 trial about the substance of the charges.
The charges that were temporarily dropped included conspiracy to make unlawful campaign contributions, conspiracy to bribe foreign officials and two other conspiracy counts. He also was charged with securities fraud and commodities fraud.
In their letter to Kaplan, prosecutors noted that they introduced evidence about all of the dropped charges during Bankman-Fried's monthlong trial.
They said authorities in the Bahamas still have not responded to their request to bring the additional charges at a second trial.
A lawyer for Bankman-Fried declined comment.
Mixed news, yes. From Reuters earlier:
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan set Bankman-Fried's sentencing for March 28, 2024.
Bankman-Fried could face decades in prison.
Kaplan will sentence Bankman-Fried based on several factors, including his personal history and the nature of the crime.
In denying Bankman-Fried's release from jail to prepare for trial, Kaplan said he could potentially face a "very long sentence."
Kaplan wrote in a 2007 article about corporate crime that "crimes committed by white collar criminals out of a studied calculation of likely costs and benefits of engaging in the criminal behavior perhaps are especially reprehensible."
Is this the end of the case?
Prosecutors' case against Bankman-Fried is not over.
Bankman-Fried is scheduled to stand trial in March on charges of paying a $40 million bribe to Chinese officials and conspiring to make more than 300 illegal political donations in the U.S.
Will Bankman-Fried appeal?
Bankman-Fried is likely to ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review his conviction, as well as rulings against him before and during the trial.
Kaplan partly blocked Bankman-Fried from testifying to the jury that lawyers were involved in aspects of FTX's business.
Bankman-Fried's attorneys moved for acquittal during the trial, arguing prosecutors had failed to prove their case. Kaplan denied the motion. His lawyer Mark Cohen said following Bankman-Fried's conviction that his client would continue to "vigorously fight the charges."
So, the change is that the second charge Reuters described will not go to trial.
Reuters further noted:
Bankman-Fried has been detained in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since Aug. 11, when Kaplan found he likely tampered with witnesses at least twice.
He is likely to remain there until sentencing.
Glory days for SBF are over after the FTX crypto exchange went splat. In other news a then crypto exchange competitor of SBF, still operating, Binance, settled via paying a "go sit in the corner" fine, while still in business worldwide, doing fine.
Justice is blind, but cash into one side of the balance can be felt.
_____________UPDATE____________
Unlike Rudy's bankruptcy which appears to be that of a tapped out debtor, (despite being filed as a Chap. 11 action and not under Chap. 7), the FTX wind-down involved actual money.
In a recent Crabgrass post the Merton spouses' end-of-year "Wallstreet on Parade" item was featured.
During the pendency of post-collapse events late in 2022 and in early 2023 involving SBF and FTX, the pair reported; e.g., here, here, here, and here (with a link over to a Forbes online report); with those four exemplar items not exhausting their arguably unique analyses.
_________FURTHER UPDATE________
As this update is written, we are in 2024.
Wouldn't you like to see the money followed?
The Murdoch family, at their NY Post and FOX outlets question scrubbing a second trial as a sop to the deep state. Not thinking as they do, nonetheless, who takes money is or should be important to a nation wanting clean politics.
There are sound grounds to say a second trial following the money would tell us more of value than the first trial saying unregulated (illregulated also) crypto sucks.
Breitbart did its follow-up on second-trial cancellation.
A carry of FOX content stated:
In a Friday letter filed in federal court in Manhattan, prosecutors said they do "not plan to proceed with a second trial" as "much of the evidence that would be offered in a second trial was already offered in the first trial and can be considered by the Court at the defendant’s March 2024 sentencing."
"Given that practical reality, and the strong public interest in a prompt resolution of this matter, the Government intends to proceed to sentencing on the counts for which the defendant was convicted at trial," the prosecutors added.
Do you see a strong public murmuring for a prompt move to sentencing; and in your mind is late March "prompt?" DOJ seems to see a mirage. Tell me why.
Continuing:
The decision by prosecutors not to hold a second trial against Bankman-Fried quickly drew backlash from those who had followed the case.
"So we won’t know which politicians he bribed or who’s campaigns he influenced? That collective sigh of relief you are hearing is from the DEEP STATE," Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., wrote in a Friday night post to X.
Conservative commentator John Cardillo also weighed in on the announcement from prosecutors, accusing the Department of Justice of shielding Democrats from being named as recipients of Bankman-Fried donations.
"Sam Bankman-Fried will not face second trial," Cardillo wrote in an X post. "DOJ is protecting his Dem donation recipients."
[... Oh, don't look here, look there, got it and thanks] Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk also commented on the prosecutors' move to not hold a second trial for Bankman-Fried, insisting [...] "The SBF case became too high-profile for the DOJ to completely ignore, but they made sure laundering $100 million of customers’ money to Schumer, Biden, and McConnell and other dark money groups would never blow back on the ‘elite.’ Trump faces 700 years in federal prison, but America’s uniparty cabal just gave themselves a get out of jail free card. You’re witnessing DC corruption in mealtime," Kirk wrote in a social media post.
The bet here is he said "realtime" and not "mealtime." Continuing -
Weighing in on the matter, Trending Politics co-owner Collin Rugg said, "Making bribes with stolen money is fine as long as that money is going to U.S. politicians."
"SBF donated $100 million during the 2022 midterms, pouring tens of millions into dark money groups with customers' funds," Rugg wrote on X. "Some of these groups were linked to Senate leaders including Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer."
Rugg's post to social media also included a clip that appeared to show Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., blowing Bankman-Fried a kiss during one of their encounters.
In 2021 and 2022, Bankman-Fried donated nearly $38 million to various candidates and PACs, mainly giving his cash to Democratic candidates and left-wing groups, according to Federal Election Commission filings (FEC).
[...] In the trial, he faced two counts of wire fraud and five conspiracy counts. The charges combined amount to a maximum sentence of 110 years behind bars, but sentencing guidelines may call for far less than that.Prosecutors said in their letter Friday that much of the evidence presented during the first trial would have been repeated at a second. They noted that since they "proved that the defendant engaged in a scheme to make unlawful campaign contributions, the Court may consider this scheme as relevant conduct at the defendant’s sentencing."
Prosecutors also said they were prevented from including the unlawful campaign contributions charge because the extradition agreement with the Bahamas to arrest Bankman-Fried did not include that count.
"Much of" in context means "some of" the evidence remained out of the evidence that was presented at trial, it being a discretionary thing with the lawyers, re the charges made, and the evidence presented.
So, you read it -- not the deep state at all, but ordinary run-of-the-mill career politicians are named as of interest. Schumer and McConnell mentioned that way.
Deep state?
NOTE: Schumer and McConnell are not deep, they are superficial.
And the news is: Three ultra-rightwing outlets wail. As if it might have been only "the other guys" who took SBF - FTX money. Or mainly so.
Do you suppose Tom Emmer would agree with those outlets wanting another trial to have follow-the-FTX/SBF-money fully pursued and exposed?
Remember, Emmer was the
head Republican House money tree shaker back then in 2021, while SBF was still thought legit. Emmer was shaking the tree to get $$$ for Republican candidates in 2022 elections. What's your guess on Emmer's view, second trial, or move along?
It's The American Way. Her job, policing who gets onto a ballot, or not.
And anyone (with standing) can sue to have a court reverse her decision. This fellow, Trump I think is his name, has standing, while not the first insurrectionist to get on a ballot, but one arguably against the U.S. of A's Congress certifying an election outcome, and not against a State regulatory system captured by the ones intended to be the regulated - as was the case of the earlier insurrectionist to get on a ballot (repeatedly).
I watched a part of that Jan. 6 Trump speech in the heavy overcoat with black leather gloves, breath fogging in the cold and wind and snow, where he kept talking and talking, something he does regularly, and I was not about to be dumb enough to watch more. I'd taken a random sampling and what I saw was he urged a mob to go to the Capitol. To me it was insurrection by a loser, we could split hairs over that view, but it was the same call the Maine Secretary of State made, in good faith, and bless her heart. I am in no position of authority to do anything one way or another about the fellow Drumpf, Trump, whoever, being on a ballot, but she could and did. It was her job. She did it.
EARLIER INSURRECTIONIST BALLOT SAGA
Now, as about the earlier insurrectionist and his insurrection, first, Ballotpedia, and Wikipedia, to set the table. But know, the -pedias only tell a part of the story, Wikipedia, being more detailed, stating in relevant part:
Politics
According to Mover, he has run for public office more than 17 times but has never been elected.[3]
Though originally motivated to run for office in order to draw attention to Washington's complex regulations for movers, Mover's more recent campaigns have been a marketing tactic to promote his business. In 2004 he estimated $150,000 (~$223,852 in 2022) of his company's annual revenue came from the name-familiarity generated by his ballot appearances.[2] Never endorsed by a political party, he has sought office as both a Democrat and a Republican. In the 2014 election for U.S. Congress from Washington's 1st congressional district, Mover, a Civil War enthusiast,[4] ran as a candidate of the "National Union Party" (under Washington elections law, candidates can declare themselves a member of any party, whether the party exists or not).[5] Changing his name again to Uncle Mover, Mover filed to run for U.S. Senate in 2016.[6]
Yes! That says jack about insurrection, and readers spotting that fact deserve more.
And the full story, back then, was told by MSM and now also is told via an obscure website - https://libertyunbound.com/. Specifically, this post, (where the MSM version is fairly parallel but less positively judgmental):
https://libertyunbound.com/a-salute-to-mike-the-mover/
Earlier this summer, I was on National Public Radio. In a 20-minute program called “Planet Money,” I was interviewed about a political fight I’d covered as a columnist at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer 25 years ago. And NPR did a fine story. They got everything right.
NPR’s story came about because Dylan Sloan, a 23-year-old intern at NPR’s Washington DC office, had been searching the internet for accounts of no-hope candidates who run for political office. The state of Washington has a whole tribe of them because it is easy to get on the ballot here. Among the names, one stood out: Mike the Mover.
The state printed his photo and statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet and mailed it to every registered voter. Free advertising!
His given name was Michael Patrick Shanks. “Mike the Mover” was his moving company. But when the state refused to put “Mike ‘the Mover’ Shanks” on election ballots, Mike went to court. He jettisoned “Shanks” and became “Mike the Mover,” complete with “the” as his middle name.
Mike wasn’t going to get elected governor, lieutenant governor, senator, sheriff, or any of the other offices he ran for. He wasn’t going to get past the primary. To Mike, running for office was marketing. The state printed his photo and statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet and mailed it to every registered voter. Free advertising! Mike also bought an RV and painted on a giant label, “Mike the Mover,” with a picture of himself and the words, “Urban Assault Vehicle.” Mike was also a Civil War reenactor. Sometimes he would dress up as a Union general — or a Confederate — and walk around downtown Seattle.
None of this made him worth a national story 25 years later. His significance was he had accomplished, which was to break open a 50-year-old state-imposed cartel of home movers.
That’s the story that appealed to Dylan Sloan. He had recently graduated with a bachelor’s degree in economics from Bowdoin College in Maine, and had set out in a career in journalism. He had worked as an intern at Forbes. He knew the theory of regulatory capture — and Mike had faced a real example of it. The home movers, who had been regulated since 1935 in the heady days of the New Deal, had “captured” the regulators by bending the system to benefit themselves.
Earlier this year, Sloan tracked down Mike, who had long since retired. Mike led Sloan to me. Back in 1997–98, I had been a business reporter and columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The paper died in 2009, but for more than a century it had been Seattle’s morning daily. And in the two-newspaper town Seattle then was, I was the only member of the press who saw Mike the Mover as someone more interesting than a name on the ballot.
The home movers, who had been regulated since 1935 in the heady days of the New Deal, had “captured” the regulators by bending the system to benefit themselves.
“Mike is a marketing guy from headlight to hydraulic lift,” I wrote in the Post-Intelligencer of September 17, 1997. “Others have rolled quietly and illegally into household moving. Mike changed his name from Michael P. Shanks to Mike the Mover and put his picture in the Yellow Pages. In 1992 the regulated movers’ group, the Washington Movers’ Conference, complained, ‘Mike the Mover has made a mockery of our entire regulatory system.’”
That was Mike: Mock the system. Ignore the rules. The NPR “Planet Money” program quotes Mike recalling his first encounter with “the furniture police,” who tailed him and his crew and stopped them in a restaurant parking lot.
“They read us the riot act. I said, ‘Hey, I don’t know what you guys are up to, but we’re going to lunch, OK?’ ‘No, you’re doing an illegal move.’ I said, ‘No, I’m not. I’m going to lunch.’ They wrote me a citation, got in their car, and left. We went and ate lunch. I didn’t give a crap. I had a job to do.”
This happened many times. Once he even spent a night in jail.
It took a long time for the state to go that far. “Mike had started in 1981 with one truck,” I wrote. “When he painted his name on his trucks his competitors noticed him and complained. In 1987 the state cited him. In 1992 it hit him with a cease-and-desist order. In 1993 it slapped him with a court injunction to stop moving customers. He ignored them all. [State] enforcers wrote 89 tickets, each a gross misdemeanor, for operating without a license.”
Mike applied for a state license several times. “Here’s how it works,” he told me. “If you’re going to apply, you have to sign an affidavit promising not to operate while it’s pending.” The process takes a year. During that time, you have to prove you’re willing and able — and if you’ve stopped operating, the existing carriers will argue that you’re no longer able. You also have to prove to a tribunal that you are needed — that your competitors cannot serve every customer. They will tell the tribunal that they’re taking all the business they can get, which is probably true. And your application will be denied.
In 1987 the state cited him. In 1992 it hit him with a cease-and-desist order. In 1993 it slapped him with a court injunction to stop moving customers. He ignored them all.
Under that system, there had been no increase in the number of licensed movers in Washington from 1948 to 1998, a period of 50 years.
Unlicensed movers, beginning with Mike, had spread like little furry creatures in the age of dinosaurs. Mike led, and they followed — and the customers liked them, because they undercut the state-set prices that the licensed companies charged. And there had been a political change. For decades, the free-market economists had campaigned against the license system, arguing that it harmed the public. In the late 1970s, Congress and the Carter administration deregulated interstate trucking. The state of Washington was an island of price-and-entry regulation in an unregulated sea.
In April 1998, state regulators had a hearing about their proposal to open the market to new entrants. And at the hearing, one of the unlicensed movers, an African-American, stood up and said, “I don’t see much diversity here among license holders.”
A licensed mover replied, “Don’t blame me that my grandfather got a permit.”
“That’s exactly the point,” the black mover said. “Your grandfather got one and mine didn’t. All I want is a chance to compete with you.”
That was the story. Someone had to wrench open the closed industry — someone “unreasonable,” a party crasher.
And that did it. The regulators at the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission were not about to defend racism. They granted the man a license — and the door began creaking open. Seven months later, they opened the door to new entrants generally. Since then, movers are still required to have licenses, but the number of license holders statewide has increased by 50%.
Mike was not one of them. When he was finally offered a state license, he recalled, “I told them to shove it.” He never did get one.
Nick Fountain, the host of “Planet Money,” found Mike’s attitude baffling. Why not be a gracious winner? Well, Mike was not that guy.
“Maybe you need a person like Mike who’s willing to wage a battle that any reasonable person would drop,” Fountain said.
And that was the story. Someone had to wrench open the closed industry — someone “unreasonable,” a party crasher, a barking dog in the antique store. That was Mike the Mover.
When he was finally offered a state license, he recalled, “I told them to shove it.” He never did get one.
Mike ran his business for another 20 years, until his doctor told him his body was no longer good for moving furniture. [...] In 1997–98, I got four good newspaper columns out of Mike and his fight to open up the moving industry. This year, the NPR intern, Dylan Sloan, resurrected the 25-year-old story to make a point about markets and the competitors who make the system work.
I was hoping the story would get him a job at National Public Radio, but NPR has hit a rough patch and has not been hiring. Sloan has left NPR and is working at a pizzeria on Peaks Island near Portland, Maine.
I called him and wished him luck finding work in today’s journalism.
And so, is this Drumpf fellow a boat rocker to make the system work right? Some think so. Opinions differ. The Crabgrass view is an unappealing narcisist who earned the heat he is taking, bad as President for four years the nation survived, and deserving the hits he is taking. As with Rudy Guiliani, who, per an earlier post telling the story, got steamrollered by missionary volunteer big firm lawyers with 20 discovery motions before a judge who believes and is on record saying prosecutors are way too soft on the Jan. 6 Capitol occupants. Rudy and The Donald are twin sons of different mothers, each a boat rocker, but distinct from Mike the Mover, who got something positive accomplished by his dissent.
Opinions do differ. Colorado judges and Maine SoS Shenna Bellows are today's version of "Mike the Mover." Being impatient, pushing things to where others will be forced to make a studied decision, "calling the question" in a timely way, in a sense.
It is Constitutionally proper to effectuate process streamlining vs putting up with intentional dilatory foot dragging. This is forcing a timely resolution where the decision belongs instead of letting an election qualification question hang fire until moot. And for that these Patriots are maligned.
There is error in maligning "calling the question" to where the Constitutional process moves the question promptly to the Supreme Court where everyone knows it belongs.
Instead of allowing pencil headed folks like Bill Barr to go on yinning-and-yanging as TV talking heads speculating interminably into mootness, these folks in Colorado and Maine are pushing the process, properly so, and are Patriots for doing so.
Next, however, expect yinning and yanging from the Leonard Leo faction of the Supreme Court, a defect we are being forced to live with.
BOTTOM LINE: It will be Bush v. Gore redux.
But force them - the privileged nine - to show their true colors, rather than letting time pass to where they still hide behind facades of legitimacy. It is naked politics, so don't try to spin it differently. Get the nine Justices on record, and do it soon enough to matter.
That is how to legitimately run a nation.
_____________UPDATE_____________
Original documents underlying the Bellows decision - press release citing the online actual decision document, pdf format. Breitbart bellowed, but Crabgrass links.
The Wallstree on Parade website, http://wallstreetonparade.com/ posts its hot items review of banking shenanigans in the U.S. of A. (and more - a Swiss icon taking gas), a focused story for our ending year, 2023:
A Big Picture Look at Our Major Wall Street Corruption Stories of 2023
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 28, 2023
Read all about it. The site sidebar has links to recent individual posts, all aimed at convincing you to put cash under a mattress instead of reliance on "these guys."
Not that they characterize their ongoing effort to show banking in its ugliest reality as "better under a mattress," but they do note some interesting stuff.
And crypto did bring down some doozy bank failure stories. Crypto holdings and bank management being, of all things, imprudent.
Oh my, banks and greed. What next? Santa not real? Francis dissing death industry?
This link, starting paragraphs:
Israel widens offensive in central Gaza as Netanyahu refuses to discuss postwar plan -- Security officials keen to arrange meeting as ‘time running out’, according to reports - Bethan McKernan in Jerusalem -- Wed 27 Dec 2023 13.49 EST
The Israeli military expanded its ground offensive in the Gaza Strip to the densely populated urban refugee camps in the central part of the territory as the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was reported to have refused requests from security officials to make plans for control of Gaza after the war with Hamas ends.
Over the last few days, three requests to the prime minister’s office were conveyed on behalf of the directors of the Mossad, the Shin Bet, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff and the defence ministry to arrange a meeting on decisions relating to “the day after” Israel declares it has achieved its goals against the Palestinian militant group in control of the Gaza Strip, Israel’s Channel 12 reported on Tuesday night.
All those requests were refused, the network said. “Time is running out and decisions need to be made already about how to act with regard to all the relevant actors inside and outside the Gaza Strip. The Americans want explanations,” it quoted an unnamed security official as saying.
Tuesday’s report comes amid allegations in the Israeli media that Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, have also refused to discuss the long-expected transition from the current “high intensity” stage of fighting to a new phrase focused on the more precise targeting of Hamas’s leaders, as well as a report that Netanyahu did not allow Gallant to hold detailed discussions with the Mossad about a possible hostage release deal.
Netanyahu may wish to postpone such discussions to protect his position as prime minister: his wartime unity government will disband after the conflict ends, and any solution for Gaza that involves Palestinian actors, such as the return of the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority, threatens the stability of his far-right coalition government.
A spokesperson for the prime minister’s office said a date for a cabinet discussion on “the day after” had been set a month ago and would take place in the coming days.
In his first interview since the hostilities broke out, the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, said on Tuesday night that the war was “beyond a catastrophe”, accusing Netanyahu of planning “to get rid of the Palestinians”.
On the ground in Gaza, Israel has broadened its offensive against Hamas, expanding into several overcrowded refugee camps near the central town of Deir al-Balah, as well as launching heavy airstrikes on the southern towns of Khan Younis and Rafah – all areas the military had told Palestinians to seek shelter earlier in the war.
More Guardian coverage:
Children being killed in West Bank at 'unprecedented levels', says UN
Gaza health ministry: 21,320 Palestinians killed and 55,603 injured in Israeli strikes since 7 October -- A total of 21,320 Palestinians have been killed and 55,603 injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since 7 October, the Gaza health ministry spokesperson Ashraf al-Qidra said on Thursday.
Actually, Steve Garvey at the bat. All his skill set has been first base and hitting. May he strike out like Casey in the California top-two open primary.
Instead, he may be a finalist on the California Senate general election ballot.
Links here and here (both Politico). Sad.
Porter and Lee being moderate and progressive respectively would, as mutual primary leaders be better than any other option; but I don't vote there and those who do could do something really stupid in the primary.
The Trump impeachment guy, unimpressive is how he's viewed here. It might turn out "Senator Unimpressive," the junior Senator from California. Senator Unimpressive would be a lock, if the primary has Schiff and Garvey as the top two vote getters.
UPDATE: Garvey and Schiff = Take Me Out to the Ballgame, and Impeach the Ump.
And how much help do you see Trump offering Rudy G. or Mike Lindell? Both hitting the shoals seems to not have dislodged Trump from a singular focus on himself and his campaign, his third, for the White House. Yes, Trump fronted a $100,000 a plate fundraiser, once, with Rudy the claimed beneficiary, but what funds were raised, and how was that at all helpful to Rudy?
The strategy seems to be use defamation litigation, deep pocketing, to quell folks from allaying with Trump during the course of which they say stupid libelous things due to a lack of self restraint in the moment - or that is how it seems. Intimidate others, or is the verb "deter?" "Deter" by example when the $$ hit the fan. While I have not counted a single vote, either way, and cannot say as a known fact that there was or was not voter fraud, and do not allege anything either way, I notice that the urge to show it happened without rock solid evidence seems a trap for the unwary. I cannot say Trump and Rudy were wrong, that the election was or was not stolen, I don't know, but the Georgia recording of Trump, and now the Michigan recording together shade my outlook; where a presumption of regularity governs absent contrary sound evidence which so far seems lacking.
Consider this tweet. Let it replay a few times since it is short but says much if you think it over. In case it gets removed, the transcript is:
@jrpsaki: You sued Giuliani successfully, why not sue Trump too? Gottlieb: "I can't really speak to that in a televised interview... But if people continue to go out on TV and repeat these lies that we have demonstrated to be false, then they can expect to hear from us."
Who was speaking in that tweet - a big firm's lawyer who delivered closing argument in the Rudy G. defamation litigation where, after closing argument a jury deliberated and came back with $148 million as its number for the two election workers. (That lawyer must have closed well.) That lawyer is Michael Gottlieb. From a big DC firm (co-headquartered in NYC) calling itself "Willkie" on its https://www.willkie.com/ website where you can find the firm touts:
A multi-lawyer elite litigation team against Rudy, who himself faced off with one lawyer.
The firm touts its mojo in running Rudy aground via its multi-lawyer litigation team - two senior partners assisted by six of the firm's associates - a team which used a 20 discovery motions and thousands of hours as a steamroller to crush Rudy and his one lawyer - costing the two election workers not a penny for such representation:
August 30, 2023
A Willkie pro bono team led by partners Michael Gottlieb and Meryl Governski, along with co-counsel at Protect Democracy and Dubose Miller LLC, won a landmark victory today against Rudy Giuliani in a federal defamation suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Fulton County Georgia election workers Wandrea ArShaye (Shaye) Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman.
In an August 30 opinion, Judge Howell granted Willkie’s motion for sanctions for Mr. Giuliani’s “willful discovery misconduct” and ordered the most drastic sanction: default judgment on all claims—defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy—stemming from statements he made about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss to intentionally undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Willkie, along with co-counsel, filed the lawsuit in December 2021, and has devoted thousands of hours to litigating the matter, including filing more than 20 discovery-related motions. The order leaves outstanding only the amount of damages Mr. Giuliani owes, including in the form of punitive damages, which will be determined at a trial in the coming months.
Today’s decision comes after nearly two years of litigation. The ruling is a significant victory and reaffirms what the Willkie team, co-counsel, and their clients have always known to be true: that Ms. Moss and Ms. Freeman honorably performed their civic duties in the 2020 presidential election in full compliance with the law and that the allegations of election fraud Rudy Giuliani made against them have been false since day one.Partner Michael Gottlieb was interviewed on CNN, MSNBC and NPR, and partner Meryl Governski appeared on NewsNation and MSNBC, respectively, to discuss the victory. This important win was also covered by other global media organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Politico, Associated Press and more.
Ms. Moss and Ms. Freeman are represented by a pro bono Willkie team that includes partners Michael Gottlieb and Meryl Governski, and associates M. Annie Houghton-Larsen, J. Tyler Knoblett, Tim Ryan, Logan Kenney, Maggie MacCurdy and Perri Haser. Co-counsel on the case is Protect Democracy and Von DuBose of DuBose Miller.
Access Michael Gottlieb’s interviews here: CNN, MSNBC, NPR
Watch Meryl Governski’s interviews here: NewsNation, MSNBC
Rudy was deep pocketed -
Pro bono publico means - for the benefit of the public - i.e., no fee charged.
That Rudy was deep pocketed has already been shown, but is nonetheless reemphasized - thousands of hours put into the case by 8 big firm lawyers + co-counsel - producing 20 discovery motions, which is unusually substantial discovery in a case of two individuals, not persons of wealth, suing on a defamation claim where there is an online video of a defendant saying culpable things.
Moreover, you may note that Rudy has substantial unpaid taxes - as Hunter Biden did - but Hunter has been paid current by credit from a Hollywood millionaire lawyer, Kevin Morris, something readers can independently research. Republicans suggest the Biden son should be treated via special prosecutor and criminal charges; while to them, Rudy is Rudy, with no hostile animus. Different strokes for different folks.
Mention of Hunter Biden is interesting because there are two NY Post items, (yes Rupert Murdoch, so in citing them and quoting a bit Crabgrass is noting what's online, without any representation of credibility in the sources):
Rudy Giuliani’s lawyers say $148M defamation ruling would ‘end’ him: ‘Civil equivalent of the death penalty’ stating:
Giuliani’s attorney said Thursday in the Washington, DC, courtroom that an initial $43 million in damages sought by Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Andrea “Shaye” Moss, would be “the civil equivalent of the death penalty.”
“If you award them what they are asking for, it will be the end of Mr. Giuliani,” attorney Joe Sibley said of his 79-year-old client, according to multiple reports.
After two days of deliberations, a DC jury ended up awarding the pair $75 million in punitive damages and $20 million to both individually for emotional distress.
Moss was also given just under $17 million for defamation, while Freeman got nearly $16.2 million.
Now, “America’s mayor,” who is fending off other attempts to drain his finances through million-dollar lawsuits that allege he stiffed payments to attorneys and accountants, has promised to appeal the decision, pointing to “the absurdity of the number” awarded to the plaintiffs.
[...] He also claimed the suit was “part of the Biden offensive that started some time ago to see what they can do about intimidating Trump lawyers, Trump supporters,” adding that one of the attorneys representing Freeman and Moss, Mike Gottlieb, was “a good friend of Hunter Biden.”
Gottlieb, a former associate White House counsel for President Barack Obama, served at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner at the same time as the then-second son and is included in email exchanges on his abandoned laptop discussing a potential deal with a Romanian oligarch.
That linked Aug. 2022 NY Post item stated in part:
Hunter Biden began working for Gabriel Popoviciu [a Romanian real estate tycoon accused of corruption ]in the spring of 2015, insiders say. The Romanian wanted Hunter Biden’s help fighting a conviction stemming from his purchase of a 550-acre parcel of government-owned land for a steep discount.
Emails on the abandoned laptop show Hunter handled the businessman via his law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.
A person familiar with the arrangements told The Post the president’s son had a side pocket agreement directly with Popoviciu that raked in “millions” for himself and associates.
Popoviciu also hired former FBI director Louis Freeh to help the embattled businessman avoid jail time. Freeh called Hunter Biden directly in July 2015, just two hours before Hunter was scheduled to meet with his dad at the Naval Observatory — the vice-president’s official residence — emails from the laptop show. It’s unclear what was discussed on the call.
“Does this still work for you,” Hunter Biden’s office manager Joan Peugh said in a July 29 email titled “12:00pm call with Louis Freeh.”
“I’m going to yoga at 5:15 if you are done with your dad in time,” she offered.
Biden family confidante Mark Gitenstein, a longtime donor to the president who worked on the Obama/Biden transition team in 2008 was also enlisted in the Popoviciu effort, a search of the laptop shows.
Gitenstein, who served as ambassador to the country from 2009 to 2012, and is now the US Ambassador to the European Union, credited his relationship with Joe Biden for the prestigious Romania posting, emails show.
He has donated more than $15,000 to Joe Biden’s various campaigns, stretching back to the mid 1990s. In the 1980s he worked as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1981 to 1989 — a period when Joe Biden was the top Democratic member.
“I was so taken by the Biden ‘family’ I ended up working for them for 13 years. And in some respects I feel like I have never left,” he said in a June 2015 Facebook post, eulogizing Beau Biden, who had recently died of brain cancer.
When Romanian President Klaus Iohannis came to Washington D.C. in September 2015, Gitenstein helped facilitate a meeting between the then-Vice President Biden and the Romanian leader.
Hunter Biden met with Gitenstein four times in 2015 and 2016, with at least some of the meetings coming after he began working for Popoviciu, frequently huddling with the ambassador at the Four Seasons in Washington D.C., according to his calendar.
At the request of Eric Schwerin, the president of Hunter Biden’s investment firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, Gitenstein put out feelers to see if a possible change to Romanian law could help Popoviciu — reaching out to his diplomatic successor, Hans Klemm and other embassy staff.
“Just checked with folks in Romania,” Gitenstein wrote to Hunter Biden and Schwerin on Jun 9, 2016. “Looks like this will not help your client because it is not retroactive,” he added on the June 16th.
“Thanks, Mark. We’ll keep this to ourselves,” Schwerin wrote back to him after receiving the intel.
A Gitenstein representative said the ambassador “did not represent Popoviciu, nor did he act on his behalf.”
Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP did not respond to request for comment from The Post. Gottlieb — who now works as a Partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher also did not respond to request for comment from The Post.
Hunter flew to Romania on an overnight British Airways flight on Nov. 15, 2016, for a two day trip to press Popoviciu’s case with the country’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) — and was set to have “breakfast with dad” at Joe Biden’s official residence at the US Naval Observatory just two days after his return.
Hunter Biden also enlisted Klemm, a career diplomat, with the help of Michael Gottlieb, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, where Hunter was also serving as “of counsel.” When Hunter visited Romania, Gottlieb, who was pals with the ambassador, set up a meeting between Hunter, himself, Klemm and Klemm’s wife Mari, emails show.
“It would be just you and me for meeting — casual over lunch dinner- just to inform him of the project we are working on- no asks involved,” Hunter Bien said to Gottlieb in a Nov 11 2015 email — a reference to the Popoviciu case.
On behalf of Hunter Biden, Gottlieb pressed Klemm to broker a meeting with the DNA.
“I have reached out to Klemm and asked him to help us broker the meeting,” Gottlieb said in a May 17, 2016 email to Hunter Biden and other business partners. “The Embassy has reached out to DNA to request the meeting. The first question we got back from DNA (within minutes) was whether this was about the Popoviciu case,” he wrote to them all again the next day.
DNA ultimately declined to meet with Hunter Biden and Gottlieb “citing Romanian regulations that prohibit them from meeting to discuss a pending/ongoing case,” Gottlieb said in a May 26 email.
Reps for Popoviciu’s former legal team insisted the reach out to US officials was kosher.
“It is standard and preferred protocol for US lawyers traveling to a foreign country to meet with a foreign government to reach out in advance to the US embassy to seek assistance and advice, and to ensure that the embassy is informed of their activities. In fact, the failure to do so would be considered inappropriate by embassies around the world,” a spokesman said.
[...] Despite Hunter’s efforts, Popoviciu was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison, but fled and has been living as an outlaw in the England, while the Romanian government continues to try and extradite him back to face justice. He did not respond to request for comment from The Post.
Hunter Biden is currently facing a sprawling federal investigation covering potential taxes violations and money laundering. Experts previously told The Post Hunter Biden’s failure to register as a foreign agent, was almost certainly a violation of the federal Foreign Agent Registration Act.
“Professionals with the State Departments Foreign Services have the responsibility to represent the interests of the United States government and the America people, not the financial interests of the grifter son of a sitting Vice President,” Sen Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) told The Post.
The excerpt is long to show enough context to determine that there was no statement in that older item of any particular friendship between Hunter Biden and Gottlieb. They worked at the same firm, and probably each billed time on whatever collaboration was done for the Romanian client, if any beyond what the quote says, which likely was billed to the client for both acting as noted. The firm's lead letterhead lawyer, Boies, may be remembered as Al Gore's lawyer per the Florida recount litigation, Gore v. Bush.
It looks from all detail to be a Democratic Party leaning firm, if politicized one way or the other. Also, it is unclear if the second NY Post item was suggesting Hunter Biden was wrongful in not registering as a foreign agent re the Romanian client of the firm. If so, such a registration question might touch the firm itself, possibly Gottlieb. Because of the uncertainty, the older item, like the friendship assertion quoted in the Dec. 2023 item as stated by an individual, does not prove "friendship" rather than collaberation alone, and does not touch upon any foreign agent liability suggestion, beyond Hunter Biden.
In characterizing the entire Willkie lawyer bunch as "pro bono" that would mean they take no contingency fee from whatever gets bone picked from Rudy's bankruptcy estate, with it unclear whether the Willkie firm will participate in the bankruptcy, because co-council might handle that alone:
 |
| photo source: https://www.law.com/ |
BOTTOM LINE: Rudy's an eighty years old and now a ruined man. What, seriously, has that gained for America? Or for Americans? A mess with us and get dragged over the rocks message might or might not be good for the nation. But that Twitter thing surely seems to give such a message. viewed in full context. Opinions can differ.
___________UPDATE__________
This might not be the only on-video statement Giuliani made inappropriately, nor might the report show all of a sequence, but it suffices to show his problem.
Presumably the ballot processing video was from surveillance cameras in the counting room, so that the plaintiffs' lawyers had no cause to sue for improper taking of an image, but when Rudy used the footage the normal practice is to blur faces and not expressly identify employee data, or get signed releases to display recognizable images. If the surveillance video was obtained via proper freedom of information methods, in particular, release of the ballot room scene would not be actionable.
So there would be no other parties who could have been liable where Rudy could claim selective targeting. He was deliberate, intentional, and certainly with reckless disregard for the truth in not saying it looked like possibly negligent practices. He was more pejorative - he went further - saying fraud in embellished terminology.
Thus while private persons were suing, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for public newsworthy individuals, the standard of "actual malice," (including reckless disregard for the truth), seems to have been met.
Those are points worth noting, that Rudy was the only actionable party, and the lawyers did not miss any additional party against whom a judgment and recovery would have been likely, who were not sued.
Clearly the self-touted crackerjack elite multi-member plaintiffs' thousands of hours litigation team could suggest discovery effort - all twenty motions - was not excessive - after all the judge allowed it, but judges do get reversed at times on appeal, and the Stefanik letter raises interesting points.
Also, the "almost schizophrenic" public characterization of DOJ exercise of Jan 6 charging discretion seems to arguably be a "red line crossing" - and certainly can be viewed as gratuitous and unhelpful, i.e., arguably injudicious, while presiding over at least a part of the ongoing Jan 6 litigation.
Again, the bottom line is Rudy is a ruined man, and what benefit, if any, is that to the nation where Trump and Biden will likely be on the 2024 ballot, hence, where Trump and Biden should be the focus of attention - not broken allies of either such as Rudy or the My Pillow guy? If Trump keeps bleating about rigged election, go after Trump, not the easier low hanging fruit.
Lions going after the weaker members of the antelope herd is a fact of nature. But is it good human nature? In fairness, that thought can be applied against what Rudy did, as well as to teamed up "pro bono publico" super lawyers doing a take-down.
Rudy indisputably created a focus on himself.
There are nuances.