Still Not Both Sides

So, it's not always and only the Republicans - although it seems be about eleventy-zillion-to-1.

And here I am, a committed Blue Wave enthusiast, determined to vote against every dog-ass Republican every chance I get, and I'm saying I hope she's legitimately cleared, but if she's not - burn her down.

We have to drive the grifters and crooks out of the system.

House ethics panel launches investigation of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick

A House Ethics panel announced Wednesday that it will investigate whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) violated campaign finance laws and failed to file required disclosure forms last year as she ran in a special election for her seat and sought reelection months later.

A statement from the top Republican and Democrat on the House Ethics Committee said that the panel had voted unanimously to create an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations that the congresswoman “may have violated campaign finance laws and regulations in connection with her 2022 special election and/or 2022 reelection campaigns; failed to properly disclose required information on statements required to be filed with the House; and/or accepted voluntary services for official work from an individual not employed in her congressional office.”

The statement provided no specifics on the allegations.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s press secretary, Jonathan Levin, emphasized in a statement that “the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation occurred.”

“Regardless, the Congresswoman takes these matters seriously and is working to resolve them,” he said.

Cherfilus-McCormick was elected to represent Florida’s 20th Congressional District, one of the most Democratic-leaning districts in the state, in early 2022 as part of a special election to replace the late Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.). She was reelected later that year.

Cherfilus-McCormick has faced scrutiny over how she financed her campaigns.

In 2022, the Sun Sentinel highlighted that she began self-funding her congressional campaign in 2021 just as the health-care company where she was chief executive started receiving roughly $8 million in contracts for providing coronavirus vaccines to underserved communities.

Cherfilus-McCormick loaned her campaign millions and also reported a major jump in her income — going from reporting $86,000 in 2020 to $6.4 million in 2021, according to the Sun Sentinel. Cherfilus-McCormick’s largest source of income in 2021 — $5.7 million — came from an LLC connected to her work as a health-care CEO.

The subcommittee investigating the issue is composed of four members: Reps. Andrew R. Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) and Troy A. Carter (D-La.).

George

George Santos announces he won't run for re-election in '24, following a unanimous vote of the House Ethics Committee, slamming him for conduct unbecoming.

Considering some of the weird shit we've seen coming from the GOP side in the House, Santos must be just short of Beelzebub his own bad self.

What chaps my ass is that the Press Poodles seem to be giving the political considerations top billing, while putting the ethical &/or legal aspects in the second chorus.

Today's Crooked Republican

I really am trying to stay away from the sweeping generalization that all Republicans are crooked.

And they seem to be going out of their way to make it damned near impossible for me.

Former Florida lawmaker who penned "Don't Say Gay" bill sentenced to prison over COVID loan fraud

A former Florida lawmaker who penned the state's controversial "Don't Say Gay" law has been sentenced to prison for wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements in connection with obtaining $150,000 in COVID-19 relief loans.

Joseph Harding, 36, of Ocala, Florida, will serve four months in federal prison, according to a statement on Thursday from the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Florida. After his release, Harding will have two years of supervised release.

An attorney for Harding, John Lauro, told CBS MoneyWatch that the $150,000 in loans were repaid to the government prior to the litigation.

"Joe cooperated completely and did everything he could to make things right," Lauro said. "These events were, needless to say unfortunate, but Joe is focused on rebuilding his life and his career, and moving forward."

Harding defrauded the Small Business Administration to obtain COVID relief funds including an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL), which he submitted in the name of a business he owned that wasn't active, the U.S. attorney's office said. After receiving the money, he used the funds to pay off his credit card and transferred money to his joint bank account, as well as to the account of a third-party business.

"Instead of using thousands of dollars in federal funds to help keep struggling businesses afloat and honest workers employed, he selfishly diverted it for his own personal gain," said Sherri E. Onks, special agent in charge of the FBI Jacksonville Division, in the statement.

The Small Business Administration earlier this year estimated that fraudsters may have received more than $200 billion in federal COVID aid intended for small businesses. Because the agency sought to quickly distribute $1.2 trillion in funds through the EIDL and Paycheck Protection programs, it weakened or removed certain requirements designed to ensure only eligible businesses received funds, the SBA Office of Inspector General found.

Harding drew national attention for penning the 2022 "Parental Rights in Education" bill, known by critics as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which restricts teachers and school districts from discussing gender identity and topics surrounding sexuality in elementary school classrooms.

Asked about the bill in a 2022 interview, Harding defended it by saying the law was "empowering parents" and denied accusations that it was discriminatory. He also condemned protesters, some of whom he said were children, for "cussing at lawmakers" over the bill.

"That should wake us up as parents that that type of behavior ... is deemed acceptable for minors to use cuss words," he said.

Harding resigned from his lawmaker role in December, a day after he was indicted on charges for COVID loan fraud, according to USA Today.

Harding "egregiously betrayed the public trust by stealing from COVID relief funds meant to help the very people who elected him," said special agent in charge Brian J. Payne of the IRS Criminal Investigation, Tampa Field Office, in a statement.

Roasting

Everything the Republicans put into the Congressional Record is little more than taxpayer funded campaign content for DumFux News - which makes the activity of the House GOP one big Hatch Act violation.

Indictment #4

Trump has now been charged with 91 felony violations.

DONALD JOHN TRUMP

13 Counts

1, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 27-29, 38, 39

RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI

13 Counts

1-3, 6-7, 9 , 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23-24

JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN

9 Counts 1-2, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 27

MARK RANDALL MEADOWS

2 Counts

1, 28

KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO

7 Counts

1, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19

JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK

2 Counts

1, 22

JENNA LYNN ELLIS

2 Counts

1, 2

RAY STALLINGS SMITH III

12 Counts

1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25

ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY

10 Counts

1, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 26, 41

MICHAEL A.ROMAN

7 Counts

1, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19

DAVID JAMES SHAFER

8 Counts

1, 8 , 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 40

SHAWN MICAH TRESHER STILL

7 Counts

1, 8, 10, 12, 14,16, 18

STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE

5 Counts

1, 20, 21, 30, 31

HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD

3 Counts 1, 30, 31

TREVIAN C.KUTTI
3 Counts

1, 30, 31

SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL

7 Counts 1, 32-37

CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM

11 Counts 1, 8 , 10, 12, 14, 32-37

SCOTT GRAHAM HALL

7 Counts 1, 32-37

MISTY HAMPTON (AKA EMILY MISTY HAYES)

7 Counts 1, 32-37

What to know about Trump's 4 indictments and the criminal charges

As former President Donald Trump pushes forward with his 2024 campaign, incidents from before, during and after his term in office are under intense legal scrutiny. He has now been indicted in four separate criminal cases.

Here's where the investigations, led by two state prosecutors and a federal special counsel, stand:

Indicted: Manhattan "hush money" probe

A New York grand jury investigating the circumstances surrounding a "hush money" payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 voted to indict Donald Trump on March 30, making him the first former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges.

He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, and pleaded not guilty to all charges on April 4. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg defended the decision to charge Trump in a press conference.

"Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime," Bragg told reporters. "That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes."

The case stems from a payment made just days before Trump was elected president in 2016. His former attorney, Michael Cohen, arranged a wire transfer of $130,000 to Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair. Prosecutors were investigating potential falsification of business records related to reimbursements made to Cohen. Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels, and vehemently denied wrongdoing in this case.

In the weeks before the grand jury decision, a steady stream of former Trump employees and White House staffers were seen entering Bragg's offices, including Trump's former White House counselor and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, former director of strategic communications Hope Hicks, and his former lawyer and "fixer" Michael Cohen.

Cohen, who went to prison on federal charges related to the $130,000 payment to Daniels, has met repeatedly with prosecutors this year — more than a half-dozen times since mid-January.

He appeared before the grand jury twice.

In his memoir "Disloyal," Cohen described an intense effort in October 2016 — just before the presidential election — to prevent the actress from speaking publicly about an alleged affair with Trump. Ultimately, Cohen wired the money through a newly created limited liability company, and both Cohen and Daniels have claimed she and Trump signed a non-disclosure agreement using the aliases David Dennison and Peggy Peterson.

Trump, a Republican who is running once again for president, has repeatedly denied allegations of wrongdoing, and lashed out at Bragg, a Democrat, calling the case a "political persecution."

In ruling against an effort by Trump to have the case moved from state to federal jurisdiction Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein addressed Trump's accusation that the indictment was politically motivated.

"Trump argues that a 'politically motivated' district attorney who 'disfavored [Trump's] acts and policies as president' caused the grand jury to indict. Trump fails to show, however, that the grand jury lacked a rational basis for the indictment," Hellerstein wrote.

Hellerstein also faulted another argument made on Trump's behalf, that he is immune from prosecution because the payments were made while he was president.

"Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty," Hellerstein wrote. "Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty."

The case is scheduled to go on trial in March 2024.

Indicted: Special counsel's Mar-a-Lago documents case

Trump became the first former president charged with federal crimes when he was indicted June 8 on 37 felony counts related to alleged "willful retention" of national security information after leaving the White House. He pleaded not guilty.

An aide to Trump, Waltine Nauta, was also charged in the case and has entered a not guilty plea.

Three additional charges against Trump, and two more charges against Nauta, were filed in a superseding indictment on July 27, when prosecutors also introduced charges against Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. Trump has pleaded not guilty to those counts as well.

The case was brought by special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in November to oversee two Justice Department's criminal investigations into Trump.

The indictment accuses Trump of storing boxes containing classified documents "in various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room." Trump lives at Mar-a-Lago, a private Palm Beach, Florida, country club owned by his company.

The indictment also alleges conspiracy to obstruct justice, corruptly concealing a document or record, a "scheme to conceal," and making false statements and representations.

Trump has defended his handling of classified information, and accused Smith of pursuing the case out of political bias, calling Smith a "radical."

The judge in the case, Aileen Cannon, has scheduled the trial for May 2024, which would place it toward the end of the Republican presidential primary season.

Indicted: Special counsel's Jan. 6 investigation

Smith's office has also been investigating alleged efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, including the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The grand jury hearing evidence in this case indicted Trump on Aug. 1.

Trump faces four charges in this indictment: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

The indictment lists six unnamed co-conspirators. Prosecutors allege they were "enlisted" to assist Trump in "his criminal efforts to overturn" the election "and retain power."

"The attack on our nation's Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy," Smith said in a brief remarks after the release of the 45-page indictment outlining the charges. "As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government: the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election."

Trump has vehemently denied allegations of wrongdoing related to his efforts to overturn the election results, and accused the special counsel of political bias.

"Why didn't they bring this ridiculous case 2.5 years ago? They wanted it right in the middle of my campaign, that's why!" Trump said in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.

Indicted: Election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia

The Fulton County district attorney's investigation into Trump's conduct following the 2020 election began in February 2021 — spurred by an infamous recorded Jan. 2, 2021, phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump pressed him "to find 11,780 votes."

The probe grew in size and scope over the next two years, ultimately leading to the creation of a special purpose grand jury — tasked with investigating not only Trump but also alleged efforts of numerous allies to thwart the outcome Georgia's election, which President Joe Biden won. The special purpose grand jury had subpoena power, but could not issue indictments. The panel of 23 Georgians interviewed 75 witnesses in 2022, and completed a report in January, which was provided to Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis.

Among those interviewed by the special purpose grand jury were many Trump allies, including his former attorney, Rudy Giuliani; South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham; and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. It also interviewed Georgia officials who are among Trump's political critics, such as Raffensperger and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

In February, a judge ordered a small portion of the report to be made public. The grand jurors wrote that they found "no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election," and that a ""majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it."

A grand jury was impaneled over the summer, and on Aug. 14, it returned an indictment against Trump and 18 allies on charges of election fraud, racketeering and other counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Those charged include Giuliani and Meadows as well as John Eastman, a conservative lawyer; Jeffrey Clark, a Trump Justice Department official; and Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis, lawyers who pushed baseless claims of voter fraud.

Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO, allows the group to be charged for criminal acts that are alleged to have taken place both in Georgia or outside the state in furtherance of the conspiracy to overturn the outcome of the presidential election in Georgia.

The 98-page indictment lists 41 total counts, including 13 against Trump, and notes there are 30 unindicted co-conspirators.

The indictment describes several schemes allegedly used by Trump and his co-defendants to attempt to reverse his electoral loss, including making false statements to state legislatures and top state officials; creating fake Electoral College documents and recruiting supporters to cast false votes at the Georgia Capitol; harassing Fulton County election worker Ruby Freeman; and "corruptly" soliciting senior Justice Department officials and then-Vice President Mike Pence.

It also accuses members of the "enterprise" of stealing data, including ballot images, voting equipment software and personal voter information, from Coffee County, Georgia, and making false statements to government investigators.

Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. In a statement following the indictment, attorneys for Trump criticized the investigation, saying "this one-sided grand jury presentation relied on witnesses who harbor their own personal and political interests."

"We look forward to a detailed review of this indictment which is undoubtedly just as flawed and unconstitutional as this entire process has been," said the attorneys, Drew Findling, Jennifer Little and Marissa Goldberg.

In a statement to CBS News, Giuliani said the indictment "is an affront to American Democracy and does permanent, irrevocable harm to our justice system."

Prick Up Your Ears

When even the Press Poodles notice something - enough to actually say something about it - and to say straight out that the behavior sucks and needs to stop - maybe we're starting to get somewhere.

Of, course there's the usual Both Sides razor blade in this apple, and that pisses me off, but at least WaPo subtly points out the differences in the way each member is using the power to block.

Manchin is being Manchin - a self-dealing prick, and coin-operated shill for the Dirty Fuels Cartel.

And Bernie is holding certain nominees in order to get a commitment from Biden to put up a real plan to reduce medication prices.

So on one side we've got Senators holding things up for reasons other than partisan politics.

But the Republicans are doing it in order to impose minority rule - perfectly in keeping with their fucked up ideas about using government to exact political vengeance (ie: "weaponizing government") - so they can suck up to Trump and his MAGA rubes.

Opinion

Senators have become hostage-takers. It should stop.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) announced during former president Donald Trump’s arraignment in federal court on Tuesday that he will use what are known as “procedural holds” to stop the confirmation of Justice Department nominees. “We have to grind this department to a halt until Merrick Garland promises to … stop going after his political opponents,” he said in a video posted to Twitter. To decry what he wrongly claims is the politicization of law enforcement, Mr. Vance is, well, politicizing law enforcement.

Mr. Vance is not the only senator taking hostages. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is blocking more than 200 military promotions, typically approved by unanimous consent, in a gambit to stop the Pentagon from reimbursing service members who need to travel out of state for abortions. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Monday that he’ll block President Biden’s pick to lead the National Institutes of Health, as well as any other health nominee, until the White House releases a comprehensive plan to cut prescription drug prices. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, announced blanket opposition last month to every nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency until the Biden administration rescinds proposed power plant regulations.

In taking an unprincipled stand on behalf of a criminal defendant, Mr. Vance appears to be acknowledging that a political debt has come due. He owes his Senate election to Mr. Trump’s endorsement last year.

His goal, he claims, is to “limit the number of people that [Attorney General] Merrick Garland has access to.” In practice, Mr. Vance’s announcement means Rosie Hidalgo will not get confirmed anytime soon to be director of the DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women. The Senate Judiciary Committee already advanced her nomination, and she’s awaiting a floor vote. Mr. Vance says he will not put holds on nominees to the U.S. Marshals Service, but his procedural ploy also jeopardizes the confirmations of U.S. attorney nominees for Mississippi and the Southern District of California.

Most relevant for Mr. Vance’s constituents, his announcement means Cleveland is unlikely to get a U.S. attorney anytime soon. Last week, Mr. Biden nominated veteran prosecutor Becky Lutzko to oversee the Northern District of Ohio, which is responsible for combating federal crime in 40 Ohio counties that are home to nearly 6 million residents. The office has already suffered the longest stretch without a Senate-confirmed leader in its 166-year history. Ms. Lutzko has worked as a career prosecutor since 2005 and oversees the office’s appellate division. Depriving the staff of permanent leadership disadvantages the community and undermines public safety while having no impact on the probe into the former president.

Hey, WaPo - maybe you could connect a coupla more dots here by pointing up how Republicans love to bitch about "rampant crime" while blocking the appointment of federal crime fighters. Just a thought, fellas.

Mr. Garland has gone out of his way to stay above the political fray and to restore the independence of his department. He appointed Jack Smith as special counsel so he could keep the case at arm’s length. Mr. Smith charged Mr. Trump with 37 serious crimes, including violations of the Espionage Act and conspiracy to obstruct justice. William P. Barr, who served as Mr. Trump’s attorney general, called the indictment “very damning” and said Sunday on Fox News: “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast.”

Holds cannot ultimately stop confirmations, but breaking through them requires significant and valuable Senate floor time — typically two or three days per nomination — that is better used, for instance, to confirm judges to lifetime appointments. While we might like to see Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) keep the Senate in session seven days a week and cancel summer recess to force the hands of obstinate members and push through the president’s nominees, that’s not realistic.

Senators in both parties need to respect a president’s right to make appointments. It’s unconscionable to treat the people charged with keeping us safe, whether career prosecutors or generals, as pawns in partisan fights. These senators should drop their holds.

A Bit Of A Scuffle

Some Freedom Caucus congress critters were trying to do a little public gaslighting hold a press conference in DC when a guy named Jake Burdett - identified as a Medicare-4-All activist decided to disrupt it with some loud, combative questions.

Keep in mind, Burdett was just talking - not acting in a threatening manner - annoying to be sure, but in no way violent or dangerous. "Just asking questions".

So I don't know how exactly this kind of protesting should be done, but I do know that the Tea Party clowns in 2010 would show up at practically every gathering of Democrats and raise hell, shouting down any elected official who was trying to interact with their constituents.

And I know that no Democrat grabbed any protester and shoved him away from the proceedings.

I also know that the guy who is now Montana's governor assaulted a reporter in 2017 while campaigning for a seat in Congress:

Montana congressman-elect pleads guilty to assaulting a reporter

BOZEMAN, Mont., June 12 (Reuters) - A Montana congressman-elect pleaded guilty on Monday to a criminal charge of assaulting a reporter, and the Republican was ordered to perform community service and receive anger management training.

Greg Gianforte, a wealthy former technology executive who campaigned on his support for President Donald Trump, attacked a reporter on May 24, the day before he won a special election to fill Montana’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Gallatin County Judge Rick West sentenced Gianforte to 40 hours of community service and 20 hours of anger management classes.

The judge in Bozeman, Montana, also handed down a six-month deferred jail sentence, which Gianforte would avoid serving if he complies with the court’s orders.

Ben Jacobs, a political correspondent for the U.S. edition of The Guardian newspaper, said Gianforte “body-slammed” him, breaking his eyeglasses, when the reporter posed a question about healthcare during a campaign event in Bozeman.

- more -

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins Faces Calls for Arrest After Dispute With Activist

Social media users, including a retired U.S. Army general, are calling for Representative Clay Higgins to be arrested after a viral video shows the congressman physically removing an activist from a press conference.

A video of the altercation, which occurred during a news briefing on Wednesday with the Louisiana Republican and fellow GOP Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, shows Higgins pushing activist Jake Burdett, age 25.

Higgins can be heard telling the Medicare activist, "You're out," as he physically moves Burdett, who yells, "Get off me," as the lawmaker pushes him.

Burdett, a Medicare supporter, told Newsweek that he was there by coincidence for a Medicare for All event at 2 p.m., which featured independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal. He said that after the rally ended, he saw some GOP lawmakers he recognized and decided to stay to ask questions. Some of the questions mocked the lawmakers, including those aimed at Boebert regarding her divorce.

"Despite Rep. Higgins being the one putting his hands on me, dragging me without my consent, the cops all sprung down on me," Burdett said to Newsweek via text message. "They let Rep. Higgins walk away without having a word with the guy, but then told me to go walk across the street to the sidewalk opposite us, so that they could question me about what happened."

Higgins, in a statement to Newsweek, said Burdett was "Threatening. He was escorted out and turned over to Capitol Police."

As Burdett shouted questions to Gosar and Boebert, Higgins asked him to stop. Burdett said he was removed while Boebert was speaking at the podium.

"Higgins seemingly appointed himself to be the bodyguard/security of the press conference, to violently crack down on activists like myself who may dare to ask his extremist buddies tough questions," Burdett said.

Burdett also posted about the ordeal on Twitter earlier Wednesday, sharing that he had been questioned by police, but not arrested after being removed by Higgins.

"I am currently being detained by DC Police for asking tough questions to far right extremist Congressmen @RepGosar and @laurenboebert at a press conference. Rep Clay Higgins proceeded to assault/physically remove me from the press conference. For this, the cops detained me, not him," he tweeted, following up with another post asking if any attorneys would be willing to help him pursue legal action against Higgins.

A Twitter user, whose post garnered thousands of comments and retweets, shared video of Burdett being physically removed by Higgins and questioned the lawmaker's behavior.

"RepClayHiggins pushing an activist for asking tough questions is supposed to be normal," she said, adding in another tweet that she is a friend of the activist in the video.

The clip quickly went viral Wednesday evening, with prominent figures weighing in as Higgins became a trending topic on Twitter.

Retired U.S. Army General Mark Hertling responded to a video clip of the incident, saying he once "fired a junior officer for assaulting a soldier" and called for Higgins to be charged.

"The issue is the subordinate has little recourse when assaulted," he said on Twitter. "Had this guy fought back, he certainly would have been charged for assaulting a congressman. This is BS and @RepClayHiggins should be charged."

Twitter user Jon Cooper echoed Hertling's calls for Higgins to face legal action over the recordings, which show Burdett saying that the congressman is hurting him.

"Why hasn't @RepClayHiggins been arrested for criminal assault or battery," he tweeted.

In a follow-up text, Burdett told Newsweek that he is "consulting with legal counsel" and will file charges if there are solid grounds to do so.

Carlin On Santos

George Carlin at the Washington Press Club luncheon - foretelling the future

George Santos after his arrest, booking, and arraignment on 13 felony counts, including wire fraud and money laundering.

A Score Card Fer Ya

Perp Walk Watch

Donald Trump: His four biggest legal problems

Donald Trump is under investigation for everything from his handling of top secret documents to alleged payments made to a former adult film star - and he is facing numerous lawsuits as well.

It can be difficult to keep track of the investigations, so here's four that could have the biggest impact on him both personally and politically.

Stormy Daniels

What's being investigated?

Prosecutors in New York are investigating alleged hush-money payments made on Mr Trump's behalf to Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star who went public with claims the pair had an affair.

Mr Trump denies they had sexual relations.

Meanwhile, the business practices of his family company, the Trump Organization, are being examined by prosecutors.

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, is leading a civil investigation (which cannot result in criminal charges) and has spent years looking at whether the company committed various acts of fraud over several decades.

A criminal investigation is being led by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and is looking at similar issues.

What has Trump said?

A member of his legal team told the Associated Press that there was no legal basis for the Stormy Daniels case and he did not believe prosecutors had made a decision on charges.

Separately, the former president and his lawyers have insisted the allegations against the Trump Organization are politically motivated.

Mr Trump has repeatedly criticised both Ms James and Mr Bragg.

So how serious is it?

In the Stormy Daniels case, Mr Trump has been invited to testify to a grand jury. Experts suggest this indicates he could soon face criminal charges, but it is not clear what these could be.

If prosecutors proceed, it would be the first criminal case ever brought against a former US president.

The criminal investigation into the Trump Organization has already yielded convictions. The company was found guilty in December of fraud and falsifying business records and fined $1.6m (£1.31m). Allen Weisselberg, the organisation's chief financial officer, was sentenced to five months in jail in January.

In the civil case, Ms James has filed a lawsuit against Mr Trump and three of his children accusing them of "astounding" fraud and deception.

The lawsuit alleges that the family inflated their net worth by billions, and is seeking $250m (£226m) that was allegedly obtained through fraudulent means. It's also seeking bans on Mr Trump and his children from serving in a leadership role in any New York business.

A Manhattan judge has denied Mr Trump's bid to delay the trial, saying the scheduled date of 2 October is "written in stone".

Mar-a-Lago

What's being investigated?

The Department of Justice is looking into the removal of government documents from the White House, which were then taken to Mr Trump's Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Investigators are assessing how these documents were stored and who may have had access to them.

The former president's sprawling beachside property was searched in August and 11,000 documents were seized, including around 100 marked as classified. Some of these were labelled top secret.

Unsurprisingly, we know very little about what's in the documents at this stage. But classified material usually contains information that officials feel could damage national security if made public.

What has Trump said?

He's denied wrongdoing and criticised the justice department's investigation, branding it "politically motivated" and a "witch-hunt".

He has offered shifting defences which have mostly hinged on the argument that he declassified the material. No evidence has yet been provided that this is true.

The former president has also argued that some of the documents are protected by "privilege" - a legal concept that would prevent them from being used in future proceedings. An independent lawyer is reviewing the seized material to determine if this is the case and that process continues.

But Mr Trump has not directly addressed the key question of why the documents were at Mar-a-Lago in the first place.

So how serious is it?

This is an active criminal investigation and could result in charges being filed.

Among other statutes, the justice department believes Mr Trump may have violated the Espionage Act by keeping national security information that "could be used to the injury of the United States".

In addition to charges relating to the classified documents themselves, prosecutors are also looking at obstruction of justice as another potential crime.

Mr Trump's team are now locked in a legal battle with the justice department over the investigation.

The department has appointed an independent lawyer, or special counsel, to oversee all of its criminal investigations into Mr Trump. Jack Smith will lead its various inquiries and will ultimately decide whether to bring charges.

The Capitol Riot

What's being investigated?

Mr Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies.

The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Mr Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot.

Following these hearings, the committee accused Mr Trump of inciting insurrection and other crimes.

The justice department is running a separate criminal probe into 6 January and broader efforts to overturn the election - but this has largely been shrouded in secrecy. It's the largest police investigation in US history, but the extent to which Mr Trump is a target is unclear.

What has Trump said?

He's denied responsibility for the riot and criticised the congressional committee, which he described as a "kangaroo court" and "unselect pseudo-committee".

He has continued to repeat his unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud.

So how serious is it?

The congressional committee - made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans - concluded its hearings by recommending four criminal charges against Mr Trump which it then referred to the justice department.

The move was largely symbolic as it is up to the department to decide whether to file criminal charges. There is no indication this is imminent.

The justice department's criminal probe, however, has already led to hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol being charged.

The former president has not been called for questioning in that inquiry, but it remains a possibility. He could also - in theory - be charged if investigators believe there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Georgia

What's being investigated?

Prosecutors spent eight months looking into alleged attempts to overturn Mr Trump's narrow loss in the state in the 2020 presidential election.

The criminal investigation was opened after the disclosure of an hour-long phone call between the former president and the state's top election official on 2 January 2021.

"I just want to find 11,780 votes," Mr Trump said during the call to Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger - a reference to the number of ballots needed to give him victory in the swing state.

A grand jury investigating the case was dissolved earlier this year after filing a final report, which remains sealed.

What has Trump said?

He's described the investigation - as he has many others - as a "witch hunt".

Mr Trump has also attacked the legal official leading the inquiry - the chief prosecutor of Fulton County, Fani Willis - as a "young, ambitious, Radical Left Democrat... who is presiding over one of the most Crime Ridden and Corrupt places".

So how serious is it?

"The allegations are very serious. If indicted and convicted, people are facing prison sentences," Ms Willis told the Washington Post last month.

The 26-member grand jury did not have indictment powers but may have recommended charges. Among the potential crimes it looked into were the solicitation of election fraud, making false statements to government officials, and racketeering.

It is not known whether the former president is being directly investigated, but some of his allies are known to be part of the inquiry.

For a criminal conviction, however, prosecutors would ultimately need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those involved knew their actions were fraudulent.

In January, a prosecutor working on behalf of Fulton County said the district attorney's office believes the report should only be released after prosecutors determine whether or not to bring charges.

This Is The GOP

It's old and crusty, and it's started to sound very stale, but:

ladies and gentlemen, this is the GOP -

the party of law-n-order

Ex-Florida lawmaker behind the 'Don't Say Gay' law pleads guilty to COVID relief fraud

Former Florida lawmaker Joseph Harding has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges related to COVID-19 relief funds. The 35-year-old is scheduled for sentencing in July.

A former Florida lawmaker who sponsored a bill dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by critics has pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining COVID-19 relief funds.

Joseph Harding entered a guilty plea on Tuesday in federal court in the Northern District of Florida to one count of wire fraud, one count of money laundering and one count of making false statements, according to court records.

Harding faces up to 35 years in prison, including a maximum of 20 years on the wire fraud charge. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 25 at the federal courthouse in Gainesville.

The former Republican lawmaker shot to notoriety last year as one of the sponsors of a controversial Florida law that outlawed the discussion of sexuality and gender in public school classrooms from kindergarten through grade 3.

The legislation became a blueprint for similar laws in more than a dozen other conservative states.

"This bill is about protecting our kids, empowering parents and ensuring they have the information they need to do their God-given job of raising their child," Harding said when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law last March.

Critics from Democrats to LGBTQ groups took to calling it the "Don't Say Gay" law and condemned Republicans for chilling speech in schools.

In December, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Harding, 35, who was accused of lying on his applications to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, which gave out loans to businesses impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. He resigned from Florida's House of Representatives one day later.

Harding fraudulently obtained more than $150,000 from the Small Business Administration, portions of which he transferred to a bank and used to make a credit card payment, prosecutors said.

In his bio on the Florida House Republicans website, Harding is described as a "serial entrepreneur" who started several businesses related to "boarding and training horses, real estate development, home construction, and landscaping."

He was first elected to public office when he won the state House seat in November 2020.

Today's Non-Accountable Accountability

House Republicans Quietly Halt Inquiry Into Trump’s Finances

G.O.P. leaders are declining to enforce a court-supervised settlement for Mazars, Donald J. Trump’s former accounting firm, to turn over records in an investigation into whether he profited from the presidency.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans have quietly halted a congressional investigation into whether Donald J. Trump profited improperly from the presidency, declining to enforce a court-supervised settlement agreement that demanded that Mazars USA, his former accounting firm, produce his financial records to Congress.

Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky and the chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, made clear he had abandoned any investigation into the former president’s financial dealings — professing ignorance about the inquiry Democrats opened when they controlled the House — and was instead focusing on whether President Biden and members of his family were involved in an influence-peddling scheme.

“I honestly didn’t even know who or what Mazars was,” said Mr. Comer, who was the senior Republican on the oversight panel during the last Congress, while Democrats waged a lengthy legal fight over obtaining documents from the firm.

“What exactly are they looking for?” Mr. Comer added in a brief statement to The New York Times on Monday. “They’ve been ‘investigating’ Trump for six years. I know exactly what I’m investigating: money the Bidens received from China.”

He confirmed the end to the inquiry into Mr. Trump after Democrats wrote to Mr. Comer raising concerns about the fact that Mazars, the former president’s longtime accounting firm that cut ties with him last year, had stopped turning over documents related to his financial dealings. The top Democrat on the panel suggested that Mr. Comer had worked with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to effectively kill the investigation, an accusation the chairman denied.

“It has come to my attention that you may have acted in league with attorneys for former President Donald Trump to block the committee from receiving documents subpoenaed in its investigation of unauthorized, unreported and unlawful payments by foreign governments and others to then-President Trump,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the panel, wrote on Sunday evening to Mr. Comer.

Mr. Comer on Monday denied knowledge of any attempt to coordinate with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to block the investigation, but he made it clear he did not plan to keep it going. His committee has issued no subpoenas concerning Mr. Trump’s finances.

Democrats fought in court for years to get financial documents from Mr. Trump’s former accounting firm, and only last year — after entering into a court-ordered settlement — began receiving the documents and gaining new insights into how foreign governments sought influence using the Trump International Hotel. The company has been delivering the documents to the committee in batches.

A Divided Congress

• The 118th Congress is underway, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding the Senate.
• I.R.S. Commissioner: The Senate voted to confirm Daniel Werfel to be the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, filling a critical position at the agency as it starts an $80 billion overhaul.
• F.B.I. Surveillance: The revelation by Representative Darin LaHood, Republican of Illinois, that he was the target of surveillance material searches conducted by the F.B.I. put a twist on a murky incident that has loomed over a debate on reauthorizing an expiring surveillance law.
• D.C. Crime Law: The Senate voted overwhelmingly to block a new criminal code for the District of Columbia, with Democrats bowing to Republican pressure to take a hard line on crime.
• A Freshman Republican on the Road: As Representative Josh Brecheen travels his district in eastern Oklahoma, his pitch to constituents reflects how the party has intertwined its spending fight with cultural battles.
• In the letter, Mr. Raskin wrote that he had reviewed communications between Patrick Strawbridge, Mr. Trump’s counsel, and a lawyer for Mazars in which the Trump lawyer indicated he had been told that House Republicans would no longer insist on additional document production. On Jan. 19, Mr. Strawbridge wrote, “I do not know the status of Mazars production, but my understanding is that the committee has no interest in forcing Mazars to complete it and is willing to release it from further obligations under the settlement agreement.”

Mr. Raskin wrote that Mr. Strawbridge had confirmed that assertion had been made to him twice by the acting general counsel of the House of Representatives, who at the time was Todd Tatelman.

Mr. Tatelman did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Mr. Strawbridge or lawyers for Mazars.

Democratic staff aides on the committee said they had repeatedly sought written confirmation from Mazars that House Republicans had agreed to release the firm from its obligations under the subpoena and court-supervised settlement agreement. But Mazars said it had not received such a release nor was any filed with the court, which has retained jurisdiction over the matter.

Even so, Mazars informed Democratic staff members that, as a result of Mr. Strawbridge’s assertions, it would cease production after the delivery of a small tranche of documents that it had already identified as responsive to the subpoena, the letter states.

Enforcement of a court-supervised settlement agreement made with one Congress during a subsequent Congress under new leadership remains a legally murky gray area. Subpoenas in cases involving the House expire at the end of each Congress, but Mazars had continued to produce documents even after the House changed hands into Republican control. Still, a judge would be unlikely to enforce the settlement if the parties involved were no longer interested in enforcement, according to lawyers in both parties.

The documents from Mazars have thus far provided new evidence about how foreign governments sought to influence the Trump administration. In November, for instance, documents the committee received from Mazars detailed how officials from six nations spent more than $750,000 at Mr. Trump’s hotel in Washington when they were seeking to influence his administration, renting rooms for more than $10,000 per night.

“In the face of mounting evidence that foreign governments sought to influence the Trump administration by playing to President Trump’s financial interests, you and President Trump’s representatives appear to have acted in coordination to bury evidence of such misconduct,” Mr. Raskin wrote to Mr. Comer.

At the same time that Mazars has stopped producing documents about Mr. Trump’s finances, Mr. Comer has ramped up his investigation into Mr. Biden and his relatives.

Mr. Comer has issued a broad subpoena to obtain bank records of associates of the Biden family, requiring Bank of America to produce “all financial records” for three private individuals from Jan. 20, 2009, to the present — a 14-year period, Mr. Raskin wrote.

He has focused in particular on John R. Walker, an associate of Hunter Biden, the president’s son, whose business dealings are under investigation by the Justice Department. Mr. Walker was involved in a joint venture with CEFC China executives, a now-bankrupt Chinese energy conglomerate.

Mr. Raskin accused Mr. Comer of using a “wildly overbroad subpoena” to conduct “a dragnet of political opposition research on behalf of former President Trump.”

Mr. Comer responded that Mr. Raskin was trying to distract “from the real issue here, and that is the Biden family money trail from China.”

“I now possess documents to prove it; Raskin knows it, and Raskin has had a meltdown,” Mr. Comer added.

When Congress was in Democratic hands, the House Oversight Committee waged a yearslong battle to obtain Mr. Trump’s financial records from Mazars in one of the major legal sagas of the Trump presidency.

Mazars cut ties with the Trump Organization in 2022, saying it could no longer stand by a decade of financial statements it had prepared.

Bamboozlement

Arizona’s top prosecutor concealed records debunking election fraud claims

Newly released documents show how Republican Mark Brnovich publicized an incomplete account of his office’s probe of the 2020 election in Maricopa County

PHOENIX — Nearly a year after the 2020 election, Arizona’s then-attorney general Mark Brnovich launched an investigation into voting in the state’s largest county that quickly consumed more than 10,000 hours of his staff’s time.

Investigators prepared a report in March 2022 stating that virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post. Brnovich, a Republican, kept it private.

In April, the attorney general — who was running in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — released an “Interim Report” claiming that his office had discovered “serious vulnerabilities.” He left out edits from his own investigators refuting his assertions.

His office then compiled an “Election Review Summary” in September that systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties — from state lawmakers to self-styled “election integrity” groups — had presented any evidence to support their claims. Brnovich left office last month without releasing the summary.

That timeline emerges from documents released to The Post this week by Brnovich’s successor, Kris Mayes, a Democrat. She said she considered the taxpayer-funded investigation closed and, earlier this month, notified leaders on Maricopa County’s governing board that they were no longer in the state’s crosshairs.

The records show how Brnovich used his office to further claims about voting in Maricopa County that his own staff considered inaccurate. They suggest that his administration privately disregarded fact-checks provided by state investigators while publicly promoting incomplete accounts of the office’s work. The innuendo and inaccuracies, circulated not just in the far reaches of the internet but with the imprimatur of the state’s attorney general, helped make Arizona an epicenter of distrust in the democratic process, eroding confidence not just in the 2020 vote but in subsequent elections.

Brnovich did not respond to questions about his conduct of the probe, his decision not to release additional documents or differences between his public statements and his office’s private findings.

The documents — two investigative summaries and a draft letter with edits, totaling 41 pages — are far from an exhaustive record of Brnovich’s investigation. But they fill in details about the sometimes-enigmatic actions of the state’s former top law enforcement officer.

Brnovich quickly affirmed then-President Trump’s loss in Arizona in November 2020, angering fellow Republicans. And he went on to resist Trump’s efforts to overturn the vote. Yet he flirted with claims of fraud as he courted GOP support over the subsequent two years, trumpeting his interim report on a far-right radio show and saying, “It’s frustrating for all of us, because I think we all know what happened in 2020.” It was only in the final days before the November 2022 midterm election, several months after Brnovich had lost his Senate primary, that he began to denounce politicians who denied Trump’s defeat, calling them “clowns” engaged in a “giant grift.”

In releasing materials that Brnovich’s administration had kept from public view, Mayes said she was reorienting the work of the attorney general’s office — away from pursuing conspiratorial claims of fraud and toward protecting the right to vote, investigating the few cases of wrongdoing that typically occur every election and preventing threats against election workers.

“The people of Arizona had a right to know this information before the 2022 election,” Mayes said in an interview. “Maricopa County election officials had a right to know that they were cleared of wrongdoing. And every American had a right to know that the 2020 election in Arizona, which in part decided the presidency, was conducted accurately and fairly.”

The records released this week represent a fraction of the thousands of pages produced by investigators and attorneys during the investigation, including additional material from drafts of reports and interviews and correspondence with witnesses and election officials. Mayes’s staff is reviewing those documents and is redacting sensitive information before making them public in the coming months, said Richie Taylor, her spokesperson.

Brnovich’s administration did not release the investigative summaries, which The Post requested under Arizona’s public records law before he left office in January. Brnovich and his staff said repeatedly throughout the investigation that they were limited in what they could disclose since the probe was ongoing.

But his office did on occasion make public some aspects of its findings. On Aug. 1, the day before the state’s primary election, Brnovich said his office had finished its probe of allegations that hundreds of votes had been cast in the name of deceased people. His office found one instance. In December 2022, as Brnovich was preparing to leave office, an executive assistant wrote in an email to The Post that “regardless of transition, we will continue processing and will release when completed.”

The 2020 election in Maricopa County drew intense scrutiny because it’s the state’s largest voting jurisdiction, home to more than half of voters, and helped swing Arizona to Joe Biden and deliver him the presidency. Brnovich launched the investigation shortly after Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based firm hired by the GOP-led state senate, ended its own review of the election in September 2021. The months-long legislative review, which was roundly criticized by election experts, affirmed Trump’s loss in the state. Brnovich was competing at the time in a Senate primary contest against Trump-aligned candidates who said they would have taken steps following the 2020 election to thwart certification of Biden’s victory.

The attorney general’s probe stretched through 2022, as Brnovich’s office spent more than 10,000 hours examining claims of irregularities, malfeasance and fraud, records show. At one point, the office set up a command center, and “the review of the audit was made a singular, high-level priority; all hands were assigned to work exclusively on reviewing the audit with other matters being placed on hold unless a matter required immediate action on our part,” a report said. Mayes said the office has about 60 investigators, all of whom participated in the probe at some point, along with lawyers and support staff.

By September 2022, a year into the inquiry, the special investigations section had received 638 election-related complaints and deemed 430 of them worthy of investigation. Of those, just 22 cases were submitted for prosecutorial review; two cases involving felons who illegally sought to vote were prosecuted, leading to convictions.

note: in case you're wondering, those 430 instances deemed worthy of investigation means the election was 99.99% clean. These pricks aren't seriously asserting "the election was rigged". They're attacking our trust in democratic processes.

eg: raise the question of shenanigans, intimating there are massive problems, then move to solve those make-believe problems by proposing drastic measures that you say are meant to protect the system, while actually intending them to dismantle democracy altogether. Exactly the way they taught it at School Of The Americas, when we were training assholes like Pinochet and Noriega to seize power.

Brnovich never broadcast the full findings, declining to close the books on suspicions raised by an interim report with characterizations directly rebutted by his own office.

The interim report, delivered in the form of a letter to Karen Fann, then the Republican president of the state senate, was met by Trump allies as confirmation that voting in Maricopa County was corrupted. The letter, sent on April 6, highlighted management of early voting, saying, “We can report that there are problematic systemwide issues that relate to early ballot handling and verification.”

But Brnovich’s staff took issue with his criticism of the handling and verification of ballots, writing in a draft of the letter, “we did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in this area during the 2020 general election.”

State investigators took issue with certain language included in an April 2022 draft of then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovoch's interim report on his office's investigation of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, highlighting problematic text in yellow and offering corrections in blue.
State investigators took issue with certain language included in an April 2022 draft of then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovoch's interim report on his office's investigation of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, highlighting problematic text in yellow and offering corrections in blue. (Arizona Attorney General)
The staff comments were made in blue type, below disputed statements highlighted in yellow, and included in a document sent by a chief special agent in the criminal division to several others in the office on April 1. That document was forwarded to Brnovich’s top aide. The subject line was, “Additional Considerations for Draft Interim Report.” It’s not clear who else reviewed the document.

The considerations were largely not reflected in Brnovich’s final version.

Brnovich speculated that a large number of early ballots in the 2020 contest may have prevented county officials from properly verifying signatures on the ballots, even though his staff advised him that the county had rigorous training and processes, as well as additional staff, to ensure proper verification.

Brnovich went ahead with his claim that “Maricopa County had not always timely and fully responded to our requests for records,” even though staff advised in the draft document that it was the “collective opinion of … investigators” that the county “was cooperative and responsive to our requests.”

State investigators took issue with certain language included in an April 2022 draft of then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovoch's interim report on his office's investigation of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, highlighting problematic text in yellow and offering corrections in blue.

When Brnovich released his interim report, it was not accompanied by a fuller “Investigation Summary,” prepared by the assistant chief special agent and dated March 8. The 24-page summary described a range of allegations probed by the attorney general’s office, including improper signature verification, misuse of drop boxes and incomplete access to records for the state senate’s audit. That report was also shared with Brnovich’s top aide, Taylor said.

Virtually all allegations had been deemed unfounded, according to the summary. Several issues were listed as undetermined, including a claim by Cyber Ninjas that certain files had been deleted by the county; investigators had yet to review all archived data.

The summary revealed that there had been procedural violations in one instance — involving the retrieval of ballots from drop boxes. The state did not find that the county had mishandled ballots, according to the summary, but that it had not always properly recorded certain details, such as the time of retrieval.

Regarding signature verification, the issue highlighted in Brnovich’s interim report, the prepared summary found, “No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.”

Later the same year, Brnovich’s office came to further conclusions about the absence of any basis for claims of systematic fraud, but kept those findings private as well.

On Sept. 19, about a month after Brnovich had lost the GOP nomination for Senate to a MAGA-aligned candidate who insisted that “Trump won in 2020,” a memo summarized the work of investigators. The memo, drawn up by a chief special agent in anticipation of a final report, was not shared with office leadership since no such final report was ever drafted or requested, Taylor said.

The memo, titled “Election Review Summary,” emphasized that, “no evidence of election fraud, manipulation of the election process, or any instances of organized/coordinated fraud was provided by any of the complaining parties.”

A September 2022 memo summarizing the state probe of the 2020 election in Maricopa County went unreleased by the outgoing attorney general, Mark Brnovich

Of the more conspicuous claims examined by investigators — including those circulated by Cyber Ninjas, Texas-based True the Vote and others — the groups “did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” the memo concluded. The information they did provide “was speculative in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”

The memo also reported that some high-profile Republican officials — who had publicly made fantastical claims of fraud — did not reiterate those assertions under questioning by agents, when they were subject to a state law prohibiting false reporting to law enforcement.

Mark Finchem, then a state representative who later ran unsuccessfully for secretary of state, had repeatedly claimed that a “source” told him that more than 30,000 fictitious votes had appeared during the general election in a county south of Phoenix. But when questioned by agents, he did not repeat the claim, “specifically stating he did not have any evidence of fraud and that he did not wish to take up our time.” Finchem provided four ballots that he said reflected a flawed voting process, but those ballots had not been counted and were unopened.

Sonny Borrelli, a GOP state senator who had alleged a coverup of election irregularities, did not repeat those claims during an interview but did provide what he said was the name of a deceased voter, the memo stated. Investigators learned that the alleged deceased voter was alive, had not voted and was not a resident of Arizona.

Investigators sought a meeting with Wendy Rogers, a Republican state senator and vocal election denier who now chairs the chamber’s elections committee. But Rogers refused to meet, the report said, “saying she was waiting to see the ‘perp walk’ of those who committed fraud during the election.”

No perp walk resulted from allegations presented to the unit, including that aerial objects flipped votes; that election workers scrubbed hard drives; and that satellites under the control of the Italian military penetrated vote-counting machines.

Today's Crooked Politician

No, it's not always a Republican.

But yes, it seems like it's always a fucking Republican.

Springfield News-Leader:

Missouri lawmaker Tricia Derges found guilty of wire fraud, illegal prescriptions, lying to feds

Tricia Derges, a state lawmaker and founder of several medical clinics throughout southwest Missouri, was found guilty on Monday on all charges brought against her by federal prosecutors.

A jury convicted Derges on 22 counts, including wire fraud, illegal distribution of controlled substances and making false statements to investigators. They also voted to allow law enforcement to take back nearly $300,000 in federal pandemic aid money that Derges received from Greene County.

The ruling marks the end of a criminal trial in Springfield that lasted two weeks and a federal investigation dating back to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

"This is an elected official who stole money from the public, a purported humanitarian who cheated and lied to her patients, and a medical professional who illegally distributed drugs," said U.S. Attorney Teresa Moore in a statement.

"She violated her position of trust to selfishly enrich herself at the expense of others. But a jury of her peers, in a unanimous verdict, saw through her smokescreen of excuses and ridiculous claims, and now she will be held accountable for her criminal behavior."

Testimony from federal and local officials, associates of Derges and medical experts outlined an expansive case from prosecutors, in which they focused on discrepancies within her for-profit and nonprofit clinics' finances, her consistent advertising for treatments that she claimed contained stem cells and her application for Greene County's pandemic aid money.

Among those who appeared during the trial were Greene County Presiding Commissioner Bob Dixon and former state lawmaker and Christian County Commissioner Lynn Morris. Derges declined to testify herself.

After the verdict was read, federal prosecutors asked the judge to revoke Derges' bond on the grounds she is a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Prosecutor Randall Eggert cited Derges' "extensive ties to the Caribbean," where she went to medical school.

Judge Brian Wimes allowed Derges to remain out on bond before sentencing, but imposed conditions on her release — including the immediate forfeiture of all medical licenses and her passport. He also forbid Derges from calling herself a doctor, being in a healthcare facility except as a patient, and teaching or speaking publicly about stem cells.

Wimes also indicated a sentencing hearing would not take place for at least four months.

During closing arguments Monday, prosecutor Shannon Kempf went through each charge and replayed audio of Derges that had been played many times over the two week trial. The audio allegedly shows Derges conflating her acellular amniotic fluid injection with an injection of stem cells.

"It is never acceptable to lie to patients about what you're putting in their body," Kempf told jurors.

Her defense attorney, Al Watkins, maintained her innocence while seeking to undermine the government's case as an attack on a community leader seeking to help underserved populations through her nonprofit, Lift Up Springfield. He described her as "naïve but relentless" during arguments. She rejected several plea deals.

In his closing arguments, an indignant Watkins framed his argument around "intent," or the lack thereof in his client. He described her use of "stem cell shot" as "shorthand" for amniotic fluid — rather than a purposeful misrepresentation.

"You can't have a scheme to help people," Watkins told the jury while Derges' family visibly prayed in the courtroom audience.

In his rebuttal to Watkins' closing remarks, Eggert said the defense attorney was merely telling jurors to "let her go because she does good in the community."

"She uses her patina of goodness to lie," Eggert said.

Derges was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2021 on charges of felony wire fraud, illegal distribution of controlled substances and making false statements. A month later, officials revealed more charges, alleging that she defrauded the county to receive CARES Act money for COVID testing her clinic had already been reimbursed for.

As the trial was repeatedly delayed, Watkins and the government repeatedly sparred through procedural motions and filings, as the St. Louis-based lawyer accused one of the prosecutors of acting with "impropriety and conflict" and calling for him to recuse himself from the case. The government called Watkins' allegations and line of arguments "baseless" in response, and the prosecutor in question, Kempf, remained on the case and was the lead presenter of the government's case. An attempt by Watkins to have charges dismissed was also rejected by Judge Brian Wimes.

Tension carried into the federal courthouse during the trial. Prosecutors repeatedly objected to certain lines of questioning from Watkins, and at points Wimes would grow openly frustrated, raising his voice during sidebar conversations with both parties.

Outside consequences for Derges continued up until the trial began. In January, she had her narcotics license put on probation for three years, and admitted to buying and prescribing drugs illegally in a settlement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. A separate lawsuit against her was filed in May by a former patient, who alleges that Derges misled him about medical treatments to relieve his back pain.

She's also been politically exiled: stripped of her committee assignments, barred from Republican caucus meetings and banished to a closet-sized office in the state capitol.

She was blocked by the state GOP for running under the party banner for re-election this fall but has refused to resign from her seat. Under Missouri law, a person cannot run for public office "who has been found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the federal laws of the United States of America."

Prior to her election in 2020, Derges gained renown in the region and state for her medical clinics' work. She was also involved alongside Morris, who held her seat prior, in writing legislation pertaining to assistant physicians in Missouri. Until losing her license after her conviction, Derges had been an assistant physician.