2020 Election: The Greatest Election Fraud in History as Globalist Consortium Carry Out Coup to Take Over America

The democrats, having failed in every effort to oust President Trump from the White House up until the Election (RussiaGate, UkraineGate, COVID-19 Scamdemic), would now see the 2020 Election as their best opportunity to remove the major thorn in the democrat’s, deep state’s, and China’s side. They had already began the steps of a color revolution. Besides, the deep state had essentially been manipulating elections for decades and had prolonged the COVID-19 pandemic scare by ramping up testing and counting asymptomatic positive tests with a faulty PCR test as cases. The democrats brought over 300 different lawsuits in the 50 states to change the election rules during 2020, all under the guise the “deadly” China coronavirus.

Tucker Carlson discussed the ‘color revolution’ and Norm Eisen, ironically Obama’s Ethics Czar, was reportedly behind the resistance and the efforts to remove President Trump from office. The elites, liberal media, the Justice Department, the courts, the Democrats, China, the CIA, the FBI, the courts, Big Tech, Big Media and many in the Republican Party were all involved as they have all become part of the beast system, the criminal cabal that wants to rule the world. Obama and the deep state never surrendered the White House as they attempted several coup attempts against the Trump Administration during his term.

For weeks after the 2020 election President Trump and anyone paying attention argued the election was rigged. President Trump even warned months before the election that the only way Republicans could lose was in a rigged election. Even leftist Molly Ball admitted, in a surprising article from Time Magazine, that the election was rigged against Donald Trump by a secret cabal of wealthy and politically connected elites.

Prominent Attorney L. Lin Wood, who successfully represented teen Nicholas Sandmann in defamation suits against The Washington Post and CNN, joined the president’s efforts to win back the 2020 election and within a week implicated (1) several deep state players for treasonous crimes: Biden, Obama, and Hillary & Bill Clinton; (2) the fake news media: CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, Mother Jones, etc. as co-conspirators; and the Chinese Communist Party via the Dominion Voting software. Sidney Powell added that Gina Haspel and the CIA must have known the Dominion voting systems had serious flaws, but Haspel and the CIA did nothing.

The original plan was to flood the US with enough illegals in sanctuary cities (mostly in swing states) to help steal the election, but since President Trump mostly cut off this avenue, all of the usual tactics and then some would need to be taken: mail-in ballots galore (including dead people (and dead pets) and out of staters), double voting, registering and voting people, changing existing ballots, bail-out of criminals for their votes (Lebron James and Bloomberg), propaganda and more propaganda from the controlled media, contest unfavorable results, etc.

Ron Klain, chief of staff designate for Joe Biden, said in 2014 that “68% of Americans think elections are rigged.” Klain replied. “That’s because they are.” Biden had been stealing from the American taxpayers for 47 years so stealing an election away from the American voters was right up his alley, even though he was ironically once (2007) worried about being on the wrong side of election fraud. Everything was game-planned in advance by the Transition Integrity Project, a think tank organization that blueprinted the Left and Deep State plan to secure a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election, including mail-in voting, suppression of speech via social-media censorship, and “mass mobilization” (read: riots) on America’s streets.

According to whistleblowers, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden personally visited Serbia to take part in a scheme that gave Democrats control of America’s Dominion voting machines in coordination with Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The plot is also linked to the Chinese, the Clinton Foundation, and George Soros. Dominion’s software was designed specifically for dictator Hugo Chavez to steal elections and maintain power, and what happened in America’s election matches what happened in Venezuala’s elections. Below, Joe Biden, who loves to brag, boasts 10 days before the election about having “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” If you think this was just another gaff, think again. No wonder he also said: “I don’t need you to get elected, but I need you once I’m elected.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden outperforms the prediction line by 78% in counties that use the Dominion or HART InterCivic voting machines, according to a data analyst with 30 years of experience. “Analysis evidence suggests the use of the Dominion X/ICX BMD (Ballot Marking Device) machine, manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, and machines from HART InterCivic appear to have abnormally influenced election results,” the data analyst wrote in a report that went public on December 17th.

Joe Biden couldn’t get a couple of dozen people out to most of his rallies, yet we are to believe that this senile, perhaps incestuous, pedophile criminal who has been selling out America to foreign countries all over the world and in their pocket (China, Ukraine, Iran, etc.) and using his son and other family members as bag men, set a democrat record with over 80 million votes – smashing Obama’s record 69 million? Biden lost 212 more counties than Barack Obama did in 2012 (Biden won 16% or 477 counties vs Obama who won 689 vs Trump’s 2497 counties – 84%), yet Biden magically gained 13 million more votes than Obama? Trump also won 95% of the Bellweather counties that have a perfect record of predicting the President. I sure as hell don’t buy it. Jerome Corsi said on a podcast that voter fraud may have accounted for more than half of his votes. That, I CAN believe!

NSA whistleblower and top cryptologist Bill Binney tweeted: “With 212Million registered voters and 66.2% voting, 140.344 M voted. Now if Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden. These numbers don’t add up to what we are being told.”

President Trump also broke his own turnout record so the powers that be were going to get however many they needed to win – as long as they could get away with it. He received 12 million more votes than in 2016, an increase of more than any incumbent in history. He grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016 and increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent.

For years, Democrats have been making Phase One fraud easier. Here are some of the methods they’ve used, often justifying them on minority civil rights grounds:

  • Motor voter registration (people are registered when they get a driver’s license), creating a massive number of registered voters, most of whom don’t vote.
  • Refusing to clean up voter registration rolls, creating millions of registrations tied to people who died or relocated.
  • Banning ID requirements at polling places.
  • Banning poll workers from comparing signatures on ballot sign-up sheets or mail-in envelopes to those on record.
  • Same-day registration.
  • Extending voting to a month-long period.
  • Absentee voting for anyone who desires.
  • Mailing ballots to every registered voter.
  • Voting only by mail.
  • Ballot-harvesting, which allows activists to collect ballots from voters and submit them.  Harvesters can fill out ballots or dispose of ballots with which they disagree.
  • Judges and bureaucrats extending the voting deadline past Election Day which may void those results constitutionally.

All of the above Democrat initiatives make the following types of fraud easier, particularly when paired with chicanery at the polling site, such as banning poll-observers:

  • People voting using another person’s ballot.
  • Postal workers backdating mailed in ballots.
  • Insiders obtaining and completing blank ballots en masse.
  • Repeatedly feeding the same ballots into voting machines.
  • Throwing out Trump votes.
  • Completing incomplete ballots.
  • Faking same-day registrations of non-existent voters.
  • Throwing out mail-in envelopes to make it impossible to winnow out fraudulent ballots.

The above efforts require human agency on a ballot by ballot basis.  Moreover, hand recounts will not catch them, so the same illegal votes still get counted.  Trump’s team has acquired thousands of affidavits proving these frauds. The huge numbers, though, occur when the ballots get fed into computers.  The primary computer systems used in America — Dominion and ES&S — are vulnerable to hacking, and their information is poorly secured (and, in the case of ES&S, runs through Europe and Russia).  Additionally, Dominion systems have a built-in program that can automatically add a multiplier to a candidate.  (For example, it could multiply every Biden vote by 1.5, increasing his count by 50%.)

Thankfully, computers are lousy conspirators because they cannot do things randomly.  If a program forces a specific action upon a particular trigger, computers will repeat that action endlessly, affecting hundreds of thousands of votes and creating data patterns that cannot occur naturally. These peculiar patterns have shown up only in swing states where Trump was winning overwhelmingly, only to have his votes instantaneously transferred to Biden or to receive zero votes from mail-in ballots.  Even Democrat-heavy mail-in ballots wouldn’t behave that way.  These are statistical impossibilities.

Here’s how they did it…

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Use Covid as Excuse to Push Mail-In Ballots

By now we’re all familiar with the inequities, even idiocies, of the Covid-19 lockdown rules. In many states and cities, it’s forbidden to have normal assembly for social gatherings, businesses, church services, and even hospital visits. On the other hand, it’s okay to have massive Black Lives Matter protests, Antifa riots, and anything else the left approves of, at least tacitly. Obviously, such unequal treatment is a formula for societal frustration, rage, and, yes, chaos. And what a friend the Democrats have in crisis and chaos!

In fact, Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris has said that this sort of chaos is likely to continue—and should continue—through the election. “Everyone beware because they’re not going to stop,” Harris said about the (often violent) protests erupting in American cities. “They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day.” But according to the Democrats, the only certainty in all of this chaos is that Americans—who are safe to take to the streets in mass protests and riots—are not safe to vote in person on November 3. We must vote by mail, they tell us. Mail-in voting is “essential from a health reason because we want to keep people at home to vote without having them all collect on Election Day,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month. “People should not have to choose between their health and their vote.”

If you’re still scratching your head wondering why it’s safe to riot but not to vote, veteran political consultant Dick Morris explained the Democrats’ game plan: “If they feel they’re legitimately losing the election, [they] are going to use the excuse of the Covid virus—nobody can come out and vote in person, they claim … and they’re going to deliberately game the system by sending out millions and millions of mail-in ballots for people that don’t exist or have already voted. And the states will not verify the [mail-in ballot] signatures because they are under the control of Democrats,” Morris added.

Well, millions of people did end up voting in person and millions of mail-in ballots were sent out. The Soros-funded Brennan Center for Justice recommended in late September that states should carry an incredible number of ballots on election day – up to 40% of all election day voters. Were many of these filled out by poll workers while watchers were kept too far away to see what was happening? Soros also funded, along with several government agencies and NGO’s, a vote-buying scheme where Native Americans in ArizonaNevada and a slew of other states were given gift cards, televisions, electronics, and even resort stays in exchange for voting.

According to FiveThirtyEight, nine states and the District of Columbia mailed every registered citizen a ballot. In another 14 states, authorities mailed everyone an application to vote by mail. In 16 states, nothing was automatically mailed to voters, although voters could apply online to vote by mail. In six states, voting by mail is permissible only with a “valid excuse.” And the remaining states are some hybrid of the preceding categories. All of these different rules provided plenty of opportunity to game the system on questions ranging from the verification of identity, addresses, and signatures to the timeliness of postmarks and the ability of the postal service to deliver ballots in a timely manner. Because there are so many “moving parts” to the vote-by-mail process, mail-in ballots are fraught with the potential for fraud.

Tens of thousands of dead and duplicant registrants in several states would seem to be a serious indictment of the system and a warning against mailing unsolicited mail-in ballots or even mail-in ballot applications to everyone on the voter rolls. But Democrats worked hard to bulldoze the path for vote-by mail, or, as Breitbart News often calls it, cheat-by-mail. The democrats also fight to block meaningful efforts to ensure that only eligible American citizens are voting. When Republicans enact legislation to encourage transparency and accuracy in our voting process by removing dead or ineligible voters from the rolls or mandating some form of identity verification, left-wing activists challenge these initiatives in court to stop any reform.

Before the election, anticipating a battle of the courts, tthe Biden-Harris campaign built a SWAT team of 600 lawyers, expecting many more recruits to come. This excludes the legal teams working in their behalf at all times such as the SPLC and the ACLU. Kamala Harris warned Democrats of the many “obstacles” Republicans would “intentionally plac(e) in front of Americans’ ability to vote. We have classic voter suppression. We have a president who is trying to convince the American people not to believe in the integrity of our election system and compromise their belief that their vote might actually count.” By “voter suppression,” she means any effort to make sure that only eligible living non-pet American citizens are voting in November.

Eric Eggers, the author of Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Electionexplained to Breitbart News how left-wing interest groups (many Soros-funded) have fought for years to keep the loopholes that could potentially create a “tsunami of voter fraud” in November. Eggers adds that the left “fund(s) organizations that go out and round up voters, regardless of legality of their status, and force them through the vulnerabilities in the system.

The 2020 election was stolen because leftists were able to exploit the coronavirus pandemic to weaken, alter, and eliminate laws that were put in place over the course of decades to preserve the integrity of the ballot box. They blatantly violated the laws they could not change such as the ‘chain of custody‘ laws which were violated in every swing state and then some. But just as importantly, it was stolen because those same leftists had a thoroughly-crafted plan, and because they were rigorous in its implementation and ruthless in its execution. Democrat non-profit organizations [funded by Hillary, Soros, China (owns Dominion and bribed elected officials), Steyer, Zuckerberg, etc.] were put in place to funnel millions into the election process. In numerous states, officials also absurdly consolidated the vote-counting and ballot-curing process in sporting arenas and other large venues, rather than the ward- and precinct-level offices that normally handle the job. This made absolutely no sense as a pandemic-related safety measure, but that didn’t stop the officials from citing COVID as their rationale.

Consolidating the vote-counting tied the other efforts together. Instead of a manageable number of ballots being transported to small offices and counted in the immediate presence of observers from both parties, truckloads of ballots were brought to a single location, inevitably resulting in confusion and commingling of ballots from various sources. At the same time, election officials could claim that they were adhering to legal requirements that observers be “in the room” during the counting process while using COVID as an excuse for relegating those observers to the “penalty box,” far from the actual counting and curing.

This was particularly egregious when it came to ballot “curing,” a process that actually involves election workers, paid directly by Zuckerberg-funded CTCL’s grants, filling out brand new ballots on behalf of voters whose ballots purportedly could not be read by machine. This could have been due to something the voter themselves did, such as spilling coffee on the ballot. It also could have been due to something that election workers themselves did, such as crumpling ballots to prevent the machines from receiving them, just as a vending machine rejects crumpled bills. It’s impossible to know exactly what happened, because Republican observers were denied meaningful access to the process — and in some cases literally locked out of the counting rooms while election workers obscured the windows with cardboard.1

Amistad Project Director Phillip Kline obtained a court order from the Middle District of Pennsylvania to view Philadelphia’s communications with CTCL. He said, “that CTCL dictated the way the election would be run in Philadelphia, how many polling places they would have,  they paid the election officials, they paid the satellite election officials, they paid the judges, they brought in these drop boxes.” He says we effectively have a shadow government because the total federal funding for elections has been matched by Zuckerberg’s funding and that the partisan effect of this funding is a violation of equal protection laws. He says there is a lot of evidence of this in swing states.2

A report by Stat News states that at the end of October Pfizer changed their planned testing protocol, placing samples in cold storage and not testing them until the after the November 3 election, when they released news that they had 90 percent fewer symptomatic infections of the China coronavirus than those given a placebo. President Trump repeatedly said throughout the pandemic that it looked like a vaccine might be announced in October. It appears he was on the right track, but the globalist controlled science community decided to hold off until after the election just to, once again, make him look bad.1 MSM falsely claimed the Pfizer vaccine was not part of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed.

The globalists, with operatives found throughout politics and the medical establishment, pushed mask mandates, social distancing, contact tracing and social distancing as a means to promote a culture of fear amonth the populace, thus making the need for mail-in ballots (the easiest means of election fraud) a necessity, according to the desperate democrats, who are in the pockets of the globalists.

Enlist all the Messengers at Your Disposal (Hollywood, Pro Sports, Corporate Media, Big Tech)

Not only did the deep state use their control over the medical establishment, they also leveraged their control over the media establishment, including Fox News, to try to steal the election and gaslight the public that Biden won with no fraud, or an insignificant amount. The media would not report on the cheating that was rampant, large-scale, and audacious.

Hollywood Liberal Mouthpieces – As early as April, about a month into the coronavirus shutdown, the Hollywood wing of the Democrat-Media Complex kicked into high gear to push vote-by-mail. Actor Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, who were among the first big name figures to contract Covid-19, teamed up with former First Lady Michelle Obama and former Obama White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in April for an ostensibly non-partisan virtual voter registration drive that encouraged states to loosen vote-by-mail requirements. In August, a group of A-list celebrities hosted a virtual “United to Save the Vote” gala—which they claimed was “fiercely nonpartisan”—to raise money to “protect the 2020 election” by, in part, increasing trust in mail-in voting. The virtual roster included Jennifer Lawrence, Jamie Foxx, Dave Matthews, Ed Helms, Jennifer Lopez, Alicia Keys, Sia, Jake Johnson, Sarah Silverman, Kenan Thompson, Chelsea Handler, Gloria Estefan, Randall Park, Erich Bergen, Nick Kroll, Sophia Bush, Jonathan Scott, Kenny G., George Lopez, etc. You get the picture. According to the event’s website, these zealously anti-Trump “fiercely nonpartisan” celebs gathered virtually to counter the efforts of “politicians who are undermining the security and validity of mail-in voting.” Meanwhile, the Democrat-Media Complex engaged in a bit of journalistic jujitsu churning out stories about how the Republicans were the ones who planned to steal the election. Here’s a headline from the Washington Post: “Republicans’ long-term vote heist matters more than Trump’s tantrums.” And here’s one from Rolling Stone: “The Plot Against America: The GOP’s Plan to Suppress the Vote and Sabotage the Election.” But it’s hard to top this headline from the Daily Beast: “This Is How Republicans Steal an Election, and Maybe Kill Some Dems in the Process.”

Pop star and anti-fracking advocate Lady Gaga campaigned with Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Election Eve, together with several local student activists. Gaga had previously (on Oct 31st) teased in a condescending video that she would be appearing in one of the battleground states before the election.

Big League Politics reported that “young black students” were being recruited to relieve veteran poll workers with experience in the vote counting process. The excuse of COVID-19 was used to scare some elderly poll workers into bowing out and being replaced by these ringers. Some election officials, like Georgia’s Gabriel Sterling, used the far-left ACLU as poll workers and likely even as ‘curers.’ The Campus Vote Project, a wing of the Fair Elections Center which was funded by the New Venture Fund – heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and other globalist NGO’s – was setting this operation up.

Pro Sports Liberal Mouthpieces – At the same time, the Democrat-Media Complex is also celebrating the new wokeness of pro sports, which was busy trying to help Democrats win. On September 7, Politico asked, “Could LeBron James Defeat Donald Trump?” As has been widely reported, the National Basketball Association agreed to set up a “social justice coalition” to help get out the (Democrat) vote. The propagandist NBA, with “Black Lives Matter” decals on every teams floor and social justice messages on the players backs, replacing their names, saw their viewership tank. Many players (NFL, NBA, WNBA, Soccer, etc.) knelt during the playing of the national anthem, only angering patriots.

Basketball player Lebron James, who also spent ~27 million to bail out criminals so they could vote), worked with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Power the Polls to recruit more poll workers. Then, these young new student poll workers, likely Black Lives Matter activists and Trump-haters, were trained in tactics of how to cheat according to one #DetroitLeaks report that has been widely censored (Video at Rumble). The Gateway Pundit asked the DOJ to investigate PA’s Sec. of State Kathy Boockvar’s ‘cease & desist’ order to to get Big League Politics to remove all stories, audio, and video related to #DetroitLeaks, the reporting by intrepid journalist Shane Trejo.

The Media  – Yet again, the landslide victory for Biden predicted by the propaganda pollsters were way off, but it’s by design. Polls are only meant to persuade voters towards a desired outcome and the result is herd behavior by many to follow the majority. On November 6th, Biden Campaign Spokesperson Andrew Bates was already threatening to have President Donald Trump escorted from the White House in January, despite the results not being in yet.

Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University, who was practically alone in predicting Donald Trump’s historic win in 2016, released his final predictions for the 2020 election on the eve of election day 2020 and gave President Trump a 91% chance of winning (with 362 electoral votes) vs a 9% chance for Biden. A Draft Kings Election Pool update posted on the eve of Election Day showed that a majority of participants in 49 states believe that President Donald Trump will emerge as the victor in the presidential election. These opinion polls have been very accurate throughout the years in predicting who would win the election – moreso than sample polls. These polls DID get it right. Trump’s massive boat parades during the summer versus Biden’s inability to hold a rally of more than 30 people just doesn’t pass the sniff test.

The 2020 election was a well scripted media propaganda campaign to manipulate the American voters. The decision desk had a hair trigger when it came to calling states for Biden while on the other hand, was very gun shy to call states for President Trump. This kept Biden in the lead throughout the election. Never at any point did President Trump lead, in spite of having commanding leads in many east coast states that were not called. Before Florida was finally called for Trump when it had been obvious for well over an hour that Biden had no chance of making up the difference, only after California was called for Biden immediately after the polls closed there thus bumping Biden another 55 Electoral Votes before Trump could get Florida’s 29.

The gaslighting continued after the election. It was the media who pronounced Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 election on 11/7, the Saturday following Big Tuesday. Nevermind that not a single state had certified the votes in their states and declared Biden the winner of even a single state. Nevermind that the media does not determine who is the president, they are only supposed to report it, but the coup was on and they continued to censor almost every availableproof of fraud… and it was massive. They just denied it and lied to the world about it.

According to the establishment media, the instances of mail-in voter fraud are “infinitesimally small.” And to prove this, the media loves to quote the “non-partisan” Brennan Center for Justice. What the media fails to tell you is that the Soros-funded Brennan Center led the charge to expand mail-in voting. They don’t just have a dog in this fight — they have a whole kennel! Quoting the Brennan Center to deny the reality of mail-in voter fraud is like quoting Big Tobacco to deny that smoking causes cancer.

Big Tech Censorship – Before the election, Twitter announced that they would allow only seven outlets to announce election results: The list includes all of the controlled mainstream media propaganda outlets such as ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News and NBC News. These big tech giants, really deep state puppet front organizations, have been engaging in communist style censorship and even using a social credit score-style scoring system to know who is not an obedient servant.

Under the pretext of assisting election officials conduct “safe and secure” elections in the age of COVID, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $500 million, violating election laws, to nonprofit organizations founded and run by left-wing activists. It was supposed to be equally proportioned, but went 10 to 1 Democrats to Republicans, and the Republicans who did get funding appear dirty or RINOs. The primary recipient was the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which received the staggering sum of $350 million. Prior to Zuckerberg’s donations, CTCL’s annual operating expenses averaged less than $1 million per year. How was Zuckerberg even aware of such a small-potatoes operation, and why did he entrust it with ⅞ of the money he was pouring into this election cycle, despite the fact that it had no prior experience handling such a massive amount of money?

Predictably, given the partisan background of its leading officers, CTCL proceeded to distribute Zuckerberg’s funds to left-leaning counties in battleground states. The vast majority of the money handed out by CTCL — especially in the early days of its largesse — went to counties that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some of the biggest recipients, in fact, were the very locales Plouffe had identified as the linchpins of the Democrat strategy in 2020. Zuckerberg and CTCL left nothing to chance, however, writing detailed conditions into their grants that dictated exactly how elections were to be conducted, down to the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places. The Constitution gives state lawmakers sole authority for managing elections, but these grants put private interests firmly in control.

Amistad Project lawyers tried to prevent this unlawful collusion by filing a flurry of lawsuits in eight states prior to Election Day. Unfortunately, judges were forced to put those lawsuits aside without consideration of their merits because the plaintiffs had not yet suffered “concrete harm” in the form of fraudulent election results. The law had no remedy to offer because the left’s lawless schemes had not yet reached fruition.

In the meantime, CTCL continued splashing Zuckerberg’s cash — only now, the organization was intent on finding Republican-leaning jurisdictions to give its donations a veneer of bipartisanship. Of course, the number of votes in play in those counties paled in comparison to those in the liberal counties. Philadelphia County alone, for instance, projected that the $10 million grant it received from CTCL would enable it to increase turnout by 25-30 percent — translating to well over 200,000 votes. (Breibart)

Facebook also placed a former Joe Biden advisor on Ukraine and a recipient of a George Soros fellowship, Anna Makanju, as their lead Executive on election policy. Following the election and the fake news announcement of Biden as the victor, Facebook removedPresident” from President Trump’s account and replaced it with “Political Candidate.” They suspended many accounts of individuals sharing information regarding election fraud or Hunter Biden laptop information. They banned the #StopThesteal Trump Rally Facebook page in less than 24 hours after it frew to over 350,000 followers.

Project Veritas exposed Google executives who were planning to rig the 2020 Election and this story was, of course, censored by all of the big tech gods and Vimeo even went as to ban the watchdog organization.

After the election, Democratic lawmakers were calling for Twitter to deplatform President Trump’s twitter account. They continued to allow his tweets but marked every one about the election with a warning link: “This claim about election fraud is disputed!” They would also show an unsafe link warning for links to Sidney Powell’s website and several other alternative media trying to get the truth about the fraudulent election out. They banned the account of the Pennsylvania Senator who organized the Gettysburg Election hearing on fraud; made unsharable the #DetroitLeaks video exposing poll workers being trained how to cheat; fail to fact-check or censor a fake racist Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), who was involved in a post-election runoff, spoof post – nor the fake USPS propaganda; suspended poll expert and statistician Richard Baris for exposing fraud; censored the announcement of the #StopTheSteal Trump rally in Washington DC; banned Steve Bannon’s War Room simultaneously with YouTube; and even whistleblower election workers.

More big tech election interference:

Electronic Voter Theft

As reported by National File, Whistleblowers Dana Jill Simpson and her husband Jim are election integrity and technology experts who have worked for Tides Foundation insiders (the Tides Canada Foundation shares office space in Toronto with Dominion Voting Systems’ headquarters). They are both anti-war progressives in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party (Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election for Hillary over Bernie in the 2016 democrat primary race). Dana Jill Simpson has been investigating Dominion for years, and she brought her concerns about voter fraud to the FBI in 2016 — including information about Dominion — but the FBI ignored her pleas for help.

“I got a tip that Biden took a Trip on May 20th 2009 and that is when he cut a deal to help Serbian Hackers in Belgrade where he was visiting to get control of info about ES and S Machines so he and Obama would have a better chance in 2012. Well, not only did they get a better chance but Biden had Holder force ES and S in a divesture suit in the Antitrust department in the US DOJ to give over half of ES and S to Serbian programmers for Dominion Voting Systems. Such a disgusting situation,” Dana Jill Simpson said. The date for Biden’s May 2009 Serbia trip checks out. Obama administration was also caught attempting to breach Georgia’s election firewall.

The Obama-Biden administration literally gave Dominion its market share through a 2010 forced divestiture. March 8, 2010 press release from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice entitled “Justice Department Requires Key Divestiture in Election Systems & Software/Premier Election Solutions Merger” announced that DOJ was forcing a divestiture of election technology from a top company. Dominion ended up getting that technology and thus nearly a third of the electronic voting systems market in America.

The Science Defies Politics blog reported: “It is not clear what products or services the company has developed. It found almost no buyers, until Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009, New York ordered a few dozens of systems from it. In 2010, Obama’s DOJ (Holder – Mueller) took the EVS unit, purchased from Diebold, away from the market leader ES&S, and gave it to Dominion. This gift included the installed base of about 30% of the US electronic voting systems (EVS) market. Within two weeks, Dominion also acquired Sequoia, which was formally spun from Smartmatic, but ties between these two companies remained. Smartmatic is a UK based EVS vendor, whose software was used by Chavez to “win” the Venezuelan referendum in 2004. Smartmatic’s unit Sequoia faced troubles in the US. Those troubles quickly ended when its assets were purchased by Dominion.”

Dominion Voting Systems is a corrupt front for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). An investigation by Austin Security and Investigation Solutions into SEC filings has revealed that the firm which owns Dominion Voting Systems, Staple Street Capital, received $400 million dollars from a Swiss bank, UBS Securities, with close links to the Chinese government less than a month before the election. Aside from UBS, the other four owners of UBS Securities are all Communist Chinese front groups. In Beijing, current and former board members are tied to Chinese communist military and intelligence agencies. In New York, three out of four UBS board members are Chinese. Some board members serve the company in New York and Beijing at the same time.

Dominion has denied their system’s ability to switch votes, but their corrupt VP has admitted it and its on video. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on Dominion’s voting systems leading up to the incredibly important 2020 Election by the swing states. Dominion Voting systems were even mandated by the corrupt democrat governor of the most critical of all swing states, Pennsylvania. USB’s with thousands of votes were handled without poll watchers present, and caught when present uploading Biden votes.

Laura Loomer reported that the software for Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, two Voting machine manufacturers with histories of election fraud and connected to shady characters, also includes security applications by Bill Gates Microsoft installed in 2019. It’s called ElectionGuard and according to the official release “is accessible by design.” Microsofts “Defending Democracy” Program reveals that one of its core goals is “Defending against disinformation campaigns in partnership with leading academic institutions and think tanks dedicated to countering state-sponcered computational propaganda and junk news”.A data scientist who wished to remain anonymous, posted several anomalies in swing states that left ‘fingerprints of fraud’ as Biden pulled ahead of President Trump. Using time series data ‘scraped’ from the NY Times, based on their proprietary “Edison” data source which would ordinarily be impossible to access for people outside the press, the data showed several anomalies that indicate fraud. See the full report HERE.

Electronic manipulation was caught in real time in at least five states due to live coverage and real-time tallies of votes. In his statement to Sidney Powell, Dr. Keshavarz-Nia, an experienced ethical hacker, big data architect and cloud security expert in cloud computing, Blockchain technology, and big data analytic solutions having worked with multiple intelligence agencies and who the NY Times described “as always the smartest person in the room” in a glowing article, concluded “with high confidence that the election data IN ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES were altered resulting in hundreds of thousands of Trump votes transferred to Joe Biden.

Raw data analytics exclusively obtained by The American Report show that during the 2020 presidential election internet protocol (IP) addresses in China (Chinese telecom enterprise Huawei Cloud and Huawei’s headquarters, Chinese internet provider ChinaNet, Alibaba Cloud, China’s Shanghai UCloud Information Technology Company Limited, Aliyun Computing Co., ChinaNet, as well as Chinese state-owned telecommunications operator ChinaUnicom), Russia (Russian software and cybersecurity firm Kasperky Lab with Russia FSB as CEO), Hong Kong (Huawei Hong Kong Cloud), Germany (University of Stuttgart), Canada (Amazon Data Services in Toronto), and the Czech Republic (Seznam, a search engine) hacked into IP addresses in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia.

Hammer and Scorecard.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney warned before the election on Operation Freedom with Dave Janda that the Dems and the CIA put in place a mechanism which can alter the voting results of electronic voting machines in key swing states (some caught live) that will determine the outcome of the election. Also prior to the election, voter machine expert, Russ Ramsland, who served in the Reagan administration and has worked for both NASA and MIT and now co-owner of Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG), was in an interview where he addressed the many unreal weaknesses in the voting machines used in the 2020 US election.

BELOW: Sidney Powell and Tom Fitton discuss the potential for nationwide voter irregularities & whether state legislatures and courts will uphold the rule of law. She mentions the use of the software programs HAMR and Scorecard to alter 3% of the vote total that was changed in the pre-election ballots collected digitally, thus resulting in a massive fraudulent swing in Biden’s favor. She explains that in addition, they ran an algorithm to calculate the number of votes they might need to come up with in specific areas in order for Biden to win and thus fraud was committed in numerous ways to achieve this.

HAMMER and various cyber weapons were previously used by the USA against other countries, now that ‘we the people’ finally elected a President that works and fights for them, the weapons are being deployed against us. Obama is, at least, a part of the head of the snake.

Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp claimed in 2019 the so-called “Hammer” (Hamr) surveillance system invented by Dennis Montgomery is a hoax. Shipp says new data shows the Hammer (HAMR) hoax is an intensifying psyop. Shipp says, “It’s fake. It’s a false story, and yet, it is being pushed all the way to the top (of Google search) that is now claiming it was part of the surveillance on President Trump, and that is pretty serious because it is getting up to that level. . . . We’ve proven that Dennis Montgomery is a documented fraud and con man . . . and after all of that, this story keeps morphing and they keep pushing it up. Somehow it has gotten to number two in a Google search.

The Gateway Pundit, in February 2021, would add credibility to Shipp’s exposition on Hammer and Scorecard and the conman behind it, Dennis Montgomery in THIS article. In TGP’s investigation into the massive 2020 election fraud, they discovered with the help of contributors Larry Johnson and Yaacov Apelbaum, that Montgomery had inserted false information about the outdated programs in order to create a false narrative to sidetrack and defraud the effort to uncover the truth about the stolen 2020 election.

On Friday the 13th of November, Rep. Louie Gohmert told Chris Salcedo on Newsmax that people on the ground in Germany report that Scytl, a Barcelona-based company that provides electronic voting systems worldwide vulnerable to electronic manipulation, was raided by a large US ARMY force and their servers were seized in Frankfurt. Scytl has (or had) Soros and Democrat party connections. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s Vulcan Capital has invested $40 million in Scytl and Bill Gates also owns stock in the company.

In an interview with WVW-TV (Brannon Howse), retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney described the raid in which the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion located on Fort Huachuca, AZ and nicknamed the ‘Kraken,’ successfully seized Dominion Voting System servers held in a CIA “server farm” facility in Frankfurt, Germany. McInerney clarified that Powell had been using data provided by the 305th, and others, as fuel for legal battles, including her Georgia lawsuit, which alleges that the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians used Dominion to interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. He says that “we have not seen any footprints of the DOJ, of the FBI, nor the CIA on the friendly side. It’s been on the ‘Deep State’ side.”

A declaration from an active-duty military analyst was made public about a month after the 2020 election.  The young analyst said that within five days of the election he/she was able to connect dominonvotingsystems.com, which is Dominion’s proprietary URL, to Belgrade, Iran, China — and Indivisible.org, a radical far left group linked to Barack Obama and that endorsed Joe Biden.12 Why in the world, other than to cheat, would these foreign enemies and a domestic partisan group have access to hundreds of voting machines? Certainly none were interested in helping Trump.

Retired Lt. General McInerney explains how various elements of the U.S. government, such as the “Deep State”, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, are involved in “this coup d’etat.” “This is treason. Benedict Arnold gave away West Point, or tried to, in the Revolutionary War. We haven’t seen treason to this magnitude ever in our history” said McInerney, adding that “the American people must demand that the President stay in office until this is cleared up, because it’s treason. It’s a coup d’etat against the government of the United States and we cannot accept that.” (National File)

More on the Setup Sting on Page 4

Manufactured ‘Mail-in Ballots’

Sidney Powell said that they had identified 450,000 ballots that miraculously only have a vote for Joe Biden on them and no other candidate. According to The Buffalo Chronicle, the Boss of the Philly mob — ‘Skinny Joey’ Merlino, claims that the Pennsylvania political operatives ordered up some 300,000 election ballots marked for Biden that he manufactured for $10 each.

Also, a video was released on 11/27 in Mandarin Chinese of a phone call request for fake ballots customized by Chinese factory in Kwangtung, China.

Massive Fraud Nationwide

President Trump gave a late night speech on election night describing where things were before we all woke up to a completely different story. When voting stopped in 6 battleground states (each with Democratic governors (except for Georgia’s who is just corrupt) Trump was comfortably ahead in 5 of the 6 before the “pauses.”

  • In Pennsylvania Trump was ahead by nearly 700,000 votes. Biden currently has 81,000 vote lead.
  • In Michigan Trump was ahead by over 300,000 votes. Biden currently has a 150,000 vote lead.
  • In Wisconsin Trump was ahead by 120,000 votes. Biden currently leads by 20,000 votes.
  • In Georgia Trump was ahead by 120,000 votes. Currently Biden leads President Trump by around 12,000 votes.
  • In North Carolina Trump was ahead by 77,000 votes (94-100% reporting). Trump has won NC.
  • In Nevada Biden had and maintained a small lead thanks to Dominion, double-voters and other illegal ballots. Biden currently leads by 30,000 votes.

Watch Mike Lindell’s excellent docu-movie on election fraud – Absolute Proof

TGP reported: In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University. According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion. Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 1,000,000,000,000,0004).

President Trump told his supporters, “This is a fraud on the American public. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we won this election. This is a major fraud on the election. So we will be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all of the voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any votes at 4 in the morning. We will win this and as far as I am concerned we already won!

That is exactly what happened! The fact that these battleground states stopped counting at the same time, “Demonstrates prior coordination by election officials in five battleground states,according to General McInerney. Then they used HAMMER and Scorecard, plus Dominion, to move Joe Biden into the lead. It is a “mathematical impossibility” the way the votes came in. An algorithm was used.

Far-left Politifact would deny that they stopped counting, and they are “partially right.” That’s because they just wanted the poll watchers out. It was a head fake. They did keep counting in the dead of night behind closed doors and without poll watchers after trucks and cars full of ballots came in and by morning all of these leads had disappeared (details below in state-by-state fraud analysis). The Constitution requires that all valid ballots be received and counted on the first Tuesday in November. Any efforts to drag the election out after this date are likely not legitimate. President Trump addressed the nationwide fraud and strange suspension of ballot counting in a tweet the next morning:

Ronna McDaniel, the RNC Chairwoman, declared they had over 500 signed affidavits alledging over 11,000 incidents of voter fraud and Sidney Powell said at the time that evidence was coming in “like a firehose” at the time. The content below shows evidence from some of the whistleblowers, data analysts, anf others that provide irrefutable proof the election was a coordinated steal by democrats activists and politicians, deep state operatives, media and big tech resulting in millions of votes created, stolen and even erased altogether in order to narrow the gap President Trump had accumulated. A former FEC Commissioner, Hans von Spakovsky weighs in on how the election lawsuits might play out in the courts in this video. Much of what we know is because of courageous poll watchers, witnesses and whistleblowers – many whom have been beaten, threatened, and intimidated.

President Trump’s Team of attorneys claim they have evidence of a large conspiracy to steal the election that will eventually reveal the following:

  • 7 million votes were likely stolen (electronically) from President Trump
  • 3 million dead people voted
  • Millions of double votes (not mentioned by Trump team, but shown pundits)
  • The fraud was very widespread, very deliberate and very well funded.
  • Dominion Voting Systems, which was created to help dictators Hugo Chavez and Maduro win election, was used in all battleground states to delete and switch votes from Trump
  • We have data out of California in 2016 that Hillary Clinton did it to Bernie Sanders there.
  • We have a lot of evidence, it’s beyond impressive and absolutely terrifying.
  • We‘ve got evidence of people being paid. We got check stubs from people being paid.

The 12th Amendment states that if no candidate has an Electoral College majority, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” Nancy Pelosi thinks that means she will have power to choose the president in that case, however, as Breitbart’s Joel Pollak noted, the 12th Amendment makes clear that “in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” (emphasis added) So, even though the House has 435 representatives (the majority of whom are Democrats), there will only be 50 votes cast—one for each state’s delegation. And here’s the kicker … wait for it… The Republicans control more state delegations than the Democrats! But, of course, with the Democrats controlling the House, they could try to change the House rules to stall for time — all the while whipping up the violence and hysteria of their shock troops in the streets.

President Trump has noted the likelihood of the Supreme Court having to decide the election as reason to fill the Ginsburg vacancy before Election Day. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” he said, adding that he thinks “having a four-four situation is not a good situation.”

That’s exactly what will happen as the Trump Team and 17 other states joined a Texas lawsuit that went directly to the SCOTUS. As reported by Robert Madsen via AmericanThinker.com,

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.

*****

Significant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections, apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short time to show actual numbers of fraudulent ballots.  Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify, which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established to begin with.

There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did.  An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made.  Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past.  Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.

The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion.  And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.  The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined.  This may seem an exaggerated to some.  It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states was highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely.  For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in  160,000.  Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black.  Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean.  Chances of doing that again is 1 in 400.  Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row.  As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I cannot speak to that.  But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small.  At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election.

Attorney Sidney Powell released an explosive document on foreign interference to Zenger News the week of Christmas. The document includes 270 pages of affidavits, evidence and testimony from numerous witnesses and sources. The 270 page document details election fraud, names and all! The document includes military and alphabet testimony, and details everything from interference, to origins of voting machine fraud, to cybersecurity intrusions into us elections systems and more. Here is the 270 page document via Zenger News.

WATCH Epoch Times 2020 Election Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America? Watch HERE

While on the surface, this may seem like a democrat coup to steal the election, it goes much deeper. China was the heart of the coup. China biologically engineered a coronavirus to attack the US and its economy via their controlled politicians in the U.S.; they were caught printing fraudulent mail-in ballots (shown just above this section); and China owns Dominion Voting Systems that the corrupt politicians and election officials made sure were in their states; hates Trump for being America First, not China First like other sold-out politicians; and has a vested interest in Joe Biden due to thier ChinaGate deal via Hunter Biden and information on his laptop shows that Hunter was very compromised (violent sexual rape of a young (perhaps 10-yrs old?) Chinese girl on one of his visits.

Di Dongsheng, a vice-dean at the School of International Relations at Renmin University in Beijing, made public statements before a large audience on November 28, 2020:

“We know that the Trump administration is in a trade war with us, so why can’t we fix the Trump administration? Why did China and the US used to be able to settle all kinds of issues between 1992 and 2016?” he asked. “I’m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here. It’s just because we have people at the top. We have our old friends who are at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence.”

“During the US-China trade war, Wall Street tried to help, and I know that my friends on the US side told me that they tried to help, but they couldn’t do much. But now we’re seeing Biden was elected, the traditional elite, the political elite, the establishment, they’re very close to Wall Street, so you see that, right?”

“Trump has been saying that Biden’s son has some sort of global foundation. Have you noticed that? Who helped [Hunter] build the foundations? Got it? There are a lot of deals inside all these.”

According to US investigative sources working in Italy since 18 November 2020, it was the US Embassy in Rome who coordinated the data manipulation of votes cast for President Trump to Joe Biden, with the technical complicity of Leonardo SpA, a company that is 31% owned by the Italian Government and generates more than half of its multi-billion USD annual revenue from its US based subsidiary. Leonardo DRS whose chief executive officer, William Lynn III, was formerly the undersecretary of defense during the Clinton Administration.

The US Ambassador to Italy is Lewis Eisenberg, very critical of President Trump’s military disengagement in the world and who is very close to the neoZionist lounges connected to the Goldman circuit. Three senior officials from the US intelligence community, landed at Leonardo da Vinci Airport in Fiumicino several days prior to the November 3rd 2020 election in the US. According to a former CIA agent, the three intelligence operatives were housed at the U.S. Embassy in Via Veneto to coordinate hacking operations during election count suspension from November 3-4.

The Conte Government is believed to have played a key role in the international coup that would have compromised President Donald Trump’s reelection. One of the board of directors of Leondardo SpA (2017) was Professor Guido Alpa, a former law partner of Giuseppe Conte in Rome. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had been the subject of December 2020 press articles about plans to establish private intelligence agencies.

Switzerland has also come under heavy accusation of complicity in the alleged cyber coup, as claimed by Neal Sutz, a Swiss-American blogger, who denounced Switzerland’s active role in US presidential fraud. It all starts with Scytl, denounced Neal Sutz, a software purchased by the Swiss national postal service, which is directly implemented in Dominion Voting Machines at the center of the US election scandal, directly linked to the tycoon George Soros. According to Sutz, Switzerland never informed the Trump Administration of the serious flaws in the Scylt software, well known to the Swiss Government, and added that it had evidence of the plot that President Trump’s lawyers would acquire.

According to local sources with direct knowledge of these events reporting to Nations in Action, the US nonprofit for election integrity and public governance transparency, the manipulated data was transmitted from Frankfurt to Rome via the US Embassy in Via Veneto, according Rome the central role in the alleged international election plot to overturn the ballots cast by American citizens for the next President of the United States thereby creating a constitutional crisis.

On the night of 3 November (in the United States) – approximately 8 o’clock in the morning Italian time – the counting of votes was simultaneously suspended in a number of key battleground states, as shown by some official videos taken from the closed circuit of the Atlanta polling station and documented extensively by the same Italian newspaper that reported this information.

At that point while the fraud was already widely initiated, the Leonardo SpA IT hackers realized that “Trump stood above Biden for a very large and unexpected number of votes” so much so that manipulation was in vain and not enough to make him lose. U.S. President-Elect Sicilian born Igzanio Moncada, CEO of FATA SpA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leonardo SpA, is believed to be a bridge between some secret services and the Italian Beijing Business Association, the Italian Iran Business Association and the Italian Qatar Business Association. It has been stated that Moncada may be a key figure in the eight month planning of the election hacking in Italy.

Senior US Embassy personnel in Italy reportedly gave the order to act, coordinating the hacking and developing “new algorithms”, states a key witness of the fraud, to secure a win for the democrat candidate Joe Biden.

Continued on next page…

Study: 2019’s Most Sinful States in America

(WalletHub) Red states and blue states may like to point to one another as the source of all that is wrong with the U.S., but the truth is that each of the 50 states has its own virtues and vices. For example, Missouri has the worst drug use problem. And it certainly comes as no […]

2nd Amendment lobbyist, Schaeffer Cox, Framed and Given a Rigged Trial after Accusing the Feds of Drug and Child Trafficking

Schaeffer Cox, a well known 2nd Amendment lobbyist who had won 38% of the vote in a State House election, became the subject of an intense FBI investigation after he angered State and Federal authorities by openly accusing them of drug trafficking and child prostitution.

Oil pipeline service company executive, Bill Allen, who had been spared prosecution on multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors in exchange for his 2008 testimony against pro-2nd Amendment Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, was among those implicated. “The State Wide Drug Taskforce supplied children for sex to a number of state and federal officials in exchange for those official’s cooperation in concealing the ongoing illicit drug trafficking activities of the State Wide Drug Taskforce,” Schaeffer Cox said.

Not long after these public statements, the same departments that Schaeffer Cox accused of corruption sent in numerous provocateurs to try to switch his efforts off of exposing corruption and on to violent vigilante-type actions. Schaeffer cox, who believes in non-aggression and voluntarism, can be heard on multiple undercover recordings telling the provocateurs, “No, I’m going to pull a Ghandi, NOT a Rambo” and “if we turn violent, people will see us as the bad guys.”

In what some have called a deviation from accepted investigative techniques, the FBI responded to Schaeffer Cox’s rejection of their violent proposals by creating a threat to his children that could serve as a motivator.

Working with the Office of Child Services, the FBI filed a child neglect complaint regarding Schaeffer and his wife Marti’s 1 and 1/2 year old son. Because they do not require probable cause, child neglect complaints are an attractive tool for investigators who wish to enter a home, but lack any evidence to support a warrant.

Once Schaeffer Cox was made aware of the “writ of assistance” issued for the seizure of his young son, the FBI dispatched undercover provocateur, Bill Fulton, to again try to convince Schaeffer Cox to go on a shooting spree in response to these new developments. Bill Fulton, acting under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Sandra Klein, pointed out that the child neglect complaint was obviously the corrupt work of Schaeffer Cox’s political adversaries in the government, and urged him to go kill all officials involved.

When Schaeffer Cox and his friend, Les Zerbe, refused Fulton’s violent suggestions a second time, Fulton flew into a rage, held a hunting knife to Les Zerbe’s throat, and told him he would “slit his throat open and bleed him out at his feet” if he and Cox didn’t agree to the proposed mass shooting. Cox and Zerbe refused, and escaped never to see Fulton again.

Suspecting foul play by the FBI and local police, and fearing for their lives from Fulton, Schaeffer Cox and his wife went to the military police station on Ft. Wainwright for help. Officers there advised Schaeffer Cox that Federal agents had come into the station and bragged of how they planned to “fix the Schaeffer Cox problem” by “going into his home to take out his kid, then just shoot Schaeffer Cox in the process.” The MP’s gave Schaeffer Cox’s attorney affidavits to this effect and would later testify to the same under oath.

At FBI Special Agent Klein’s direction, Fulton made a third attempt to get Schaeffer Cox to do a mass shooting. Fulton did this by issuing a death threat ultimatum and promising to kill Schaeffer Cox himself if he refused the proposal of violence again.

Fearing for their lives, the Cox family packed up and headed for Canada. But the FBI sent another undercover provocateur, RJ Olson, after them, court documents say. Olson, a self described “drug wholesaler” working under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland, held the whole Cox family, including a 2 year old boy and a 3 week old baby girl, hostage, against their will in an attic for 21 days after sabotaging their vehicle, then using death threats from Fulton and a made up story about a truck driver to keep them from leaving.

“The government does not dispute the fact that the actions of the provocateurs working under the FBI’s supervision did in fact meet the legal definition of 1st degree kidnapping,” said Robert John, the Fairbanks attorney who got all related State charges against Cox thrown out.

On March 10th, 2011 Schaeffer Cox was taken from the attic to a deserted industrial lot in Fairbanks where he believed he would meet the “truck driver” Olson had promised. No such truck driver existed. Instead, there was a FBI ambush of out of town agents who did not know Schaeffer Cox was a well respected local political voice with popular support. The Agent’s, who had been instructed to shoot Schaeffer Cox on site if he had a weapon, were not advised by the local FBI case agent of Cox’s repeated statements about being like Ghandi not Rambo.

FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland supplied JR Olson with an unregistered, nontraceable pistol and instructed him to “put it in Schaeffer’s lap then get under the truck so there will be some thick metal between you and him when the shooting starts.” The FBI’s plan was interrupted when the owner of the industrial lot happened upon the scene and started asking questions about why men with masks and machine guns were hiding around the corner.

Schaeffer Cox was arrested and put on trial for “conspiracy against the government.” The prosecution was led by Steve Skrocki and Joseph Botini, the same people that were held in contempt of court for hiding evidence in several related trials of Alaska political personalities. The audio recording of Schaeffer Cox repeatedly rejecting violence were hidden from the jury, but are now being made available to the public by Schaeffer Cox’s supporters via youtube and other means.

Steve Skrocki, who has publically attacked Schaeffer Cox for his belief in Moral Higher Law, built his case primarily on the testimony of Fulton and Olson. But recently released audio recording and email between Steve Skrocki and his boss, US Attorney Karen Loeffler, now show that Skrocki coached his witnesses to lie, then vouched for those lies in his closing arguments to the jury.

Still others have taken issue with Skrocki’s entire theory of the case. “The importance of this case is significant to the whole of humanity,” says Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America. He points out that the prosecution conceded that Cox had no actual plans for violence, but convicted him anyway based on Cox’s belief that ‘We The People’ may someday have to stand down an out of control government.

Schaeffer Cox, who has been in prison since 2011 agrees. “This amounts to sending people to prison for simply believing in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment,” he says. “If we don’t reverse my conviction, it will set a sweeping new precedent allowing for the wholesale round up of those who have not committed any crimes.”

Source: https://freeschaeffer.com/story/

See Also: Inside the Black Sites Where Obama, Clinton, and Holder Buried Their Secrets—Part 1 of the CMU Series

Action Steps:

  1. Write President Trump and request a pardon for Schaeffer Cox!
  2. Invest in his freedom by giving to his legal defense fund or Here: PayPal.me/SchaefferCox
  3. Help find a movie producer to make a movie about Schaeffer Cox. Send them to schaeffercox@gmail.com
  4. Stay updated by getting on Schaeffer’s mailing list by emailing schaeffercox@gmail.com
  5. SIGN THE PETITION  (Donations given through change.org do NOT go to Schaeffer Cox. It goes to change.org) Schaeffer’s Legal Defense Fund is here.

See Also: Inside the Black Sites Where Obama, Clinton, and Holder Buried Their Secrets—Part 1 of the CMU Series

DOJ Indicts Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens on Fake Charges Brought by FBI & IRS in Political, Corrupt Prosecution

On July 29, 2008, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to properly report gifts, a felony, and found guilty at trial three months later (October 27, 2008).  The charges relate to renovations to his home and alleged gifts from VECO Corporation, claimed to be worth more than $250,000. The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for possible corruption by Alaskan politicians and was based in part on Stevens’s extensive relationship with Bill Allen. Allen owned racehorses, including a partnership in the stud horse So Long Birdie, which included Stevens and eight others, and which was managed by Bob Persons. 

On December 2, 2008, FBI Special Agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower complaint stating that prosecutors tried to hide a witness and intentionally withheld evidence from defense lawyers. Joy further accused a fellow FBI agent of having an inappropriate relationship with Allen.

The case was prosecuted by Principal Deputy Chief Brenda K. Morris, Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II; and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska.

Stevens was voted Alaskan of the Century in 2000 by the Alaskan of the Year Committee. In the same year, the Alaska Legislature renamed the Anchorage airport, the largest in the state, to the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Stevens died on August 9, 2010, when a de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter he and several others were flying in crashed en route to a private fishing lodge.


Contrary to what many Alaskans believe, a search of the record does not show a malevolent plot to prosecute Ted Stevens so as to remove him from the U.S. Senate for partisan reasons or to retaliate against him for some old personal slight.  The Justice Department’s handling of the case can be legitimately faulted on a number of levels—the timing was ill-advised, the organization was chaotic, the management was dysfunctional, and the discovery violations were deeply disturbing.    There does not appear, however, to have been an evil mastermind behind the charges against Ted Stevens.    My reporting and analysis backs up the reporting of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post in pieces published at the time of the collapse of the Ted Stevens prosecution in April of 2009 regarding the absence of what the latter newspaper called “base political motivations.”

The Ted Stevens Case Grows Out of Operation Polar Pen, and Operation Polar Pen Starts with Private Prisons

Let’s walk through the process that brought the charges.   The investigation that brought down Alaska’s most important public official began not with an examination of a U.S. Senator’s home renovations and his mandatory annual disclosure forms.    Instead, the probe that led to the prosecution of Ted Stevens started five years before his indictment as an investigation into private prisons.   In the dry words of the OPR report, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Anchorage opened that corrections-focused investigation in July of 2003 “after the FBI developed information that an Alaska private prison company and a lobbyist were corruptly influencing state legislators.”    In a nod to the Last Frontier correctional origins of the investigation, the probe was dubbed “Operation Polar Pen.”

The investigation began with the work of an FBI agent named Mary Beth Kepner.   Her blond hair and trim physique made her look a lot more like a soccer mom than one of the grim-faced feds famous from the days of J. Edgar Hoover.   (Indeed, her achievements as a college soccer goalie still live on the Internet.)   Starting in Philadelphia—where she investigated complex white-collar and organized crime cases—Kepner had been with “the Bureau” for more than 10 years when she opened Polar Pen while working in the FBI’s small Juneau office.

The investigation grew in depth and scope after the federal government got Frank Prewitt—a former Alaska Commissioner of Corrections turned private prison lobbyist and consultant for Texas-based Cornell Companies—to become a cooperating witness.  Prewitt started recording (“wiring up”) on various Alaskans and provided information that allowed federal investigators to get wiretaps on telephones.    (Setting aside whatever immunity Prewitt’s cooperation got him for his own potential exposure as a defendant, it is striking that Prewitt received $200,000 from the federal government for his work; it is indeed odd that Prewitt couldn’t find room to mention that payment in a 167–page book he wrote about his experiences as an informant.)    

The Justice Department’s Top Corruption Fighters Get on the Case

As Polar Pen ballooned, the lawyers working on the probe changed.    The Anchorage-based U.S. Attorney’s Office started receiving assistance in June of 2004 from the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section.    Given that the Public Integrity Section soon came to direct all the prosecutions growing out of the Polar Pen probe—including the Ted Stevens case—a little examination of that unit is in order.

The Public Integrity Section was founded in 1976 on a wave of reforms following the Watergate scandals.    By its official mission, it “oversees the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government.”    Staffed with about 30 attorneys, the Public Integrity Section has had some high-profile successes.    Notable achievements included the Abscam investigation in the late 1970s and early 1980s (which led to the convictions of six Members of Congress) and the more recent probe into super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (which has led to the conviction of more than a dozen people, including a Member of Congress and several executive branch officials and Congressional staff members).

The Public Integrity Section had traditionally been known as an elite outfit and a breeding ground for stars like Attorney General Eric Holder and Reid Weingarten, one of a number of the unit’s lawyers who went on to a well-compensated career as a criminal defense attorney for the rich and famous.

By 2004, however, the Public Integrity Section was in the midst of some turmoil.  Heavy turnover dogged the section during most of the 2000s, with the New York Times finding that only a quarter of the prosecutors who had been with the unit at the beginning of President George W. Bush’s tenure remained there at the end.

The comings and goings were particularly frequent at the unit’s top.   The Washington Post reported in April of 2009 that the Public Integrity Section had had five heads in the past six years.

Nick Marsh Comes to Probe Alaska Corruption

The lead attorney on the ground for the Public Integrity Section—Nicholas “Nick” Marsh—was new to his job as well, and his part in this story is important enough that it’s worth sketching out his background.   A slender and intense man in his early 30s when he began work on the Polar Pen probe in 2004, Marsh had only become a prosecutor about a year before he started traveling back and forth between the “Main Justice” headquarters in D.C. and Alaska.

The boyish-looking Marsh had been a high-flyer in his relatively short life.  After clerking for Fairbanks-based Judge Andrew Kleinfeld of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the native Kentuckian had worked for two old-line law firms in New York City, rising to junior partner at the second.

Marsh wanted to be a prosecutor, however, reflecting a passion for public service and a strong impulse to mix it up.   That last quality showed up in his lettering in lacrosse in college, a fact at odds with the wonky vibe he displayed in court.   He joined the Justice Department in 2003 and was assigned to the Public Integrity Section in the fall of that year.   After he completed a six-month detail in the Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Marsh’s supervisors in the Public Integrity Section put him on Polar Pen.

Marsh’s assignment on the Last Frontier was definitely not full-time, as the young attorney juggled a variety of cases around the country.   The new hire impressed his bosses by handling three appellate cases his first year, according to the National Law Journal.    Marsh also worked in 2004 on the Mississippi-based prosecutions flowing out of fraud in lawsuits involving the drug fen-phen, and he was on the government’s courtroom team at a 2005 trial in New Hampshire over a Republican campaign official’s involvement in jamming the phones on a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote drive.

The Justice Department approved a partial recusal of the Anchorage-based U.S. Attorney’s Office in September of 2004 that gave Marsh a particularly big role in the Polar Pen probe.   While giving four lawyers from that office the job to “monitor, manage, and direct the day to day operation” of Polar Pen, the Deputy Attorney General simultaneously assigned the Public Integrity Section “overall responsibility” for the probe, including “investigative and prosecutorial decisions.”

Bolstered by more than 17,000 intercepted conversations caught on wiretaps, the Polar Pen probe into Alaska public corruption expanded to cover allegations that VECO executives corruptly influenced state legislators over the construction of a natural gas pipeline and related petroleum tax legislation.    Polar Pen progressed to the point that federal officials investigated at least 19 people, according to a filing submitted by one of the prosecutors involved in the investigation, while Alaska journalist Bill McAllister reported in 2007 after news broke of the probe that multiple sources had told him that it would result in the indictment of 26 people.

Polar Pen Zeroes in on Senator Ted Stevens

Back when Polar Pen was still covert, the probe started focusing on its most prominent target, U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska icon and Capitol Hill powerhouse who had held his Senate seat for more than three decades.

The record isn’t clear about when the investigation began that focus on Ted Stevens.  Some observers thought that the Los Angeles Times started that ball rolling with two articles in 2003.   The first focused on the links between the lobbying and consulting clients of Ted Stevens’ son Ben and legislative assistance provided by Ted Stevens to those clients, including VECO.    Another LA Times story published that year headlined “Senator’s Way to Wealth Was Paved with Favors” laid out how Ted Stevens became a millionaire “thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help.”

At Ted Stevens’ trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of assistance that the Senator had provided to VECO on a Pakistani pipeline project referenced in one of those newspaper articles; on the other hand, federal investigators never interviewed Chuck Neubauer, the journalist who did most of the reporting and research on the two Times stories.

Another straw in the wind comes from a statement in a Wall Street Journal article by reporter Evan Perez in 2009 that the Ted Stevens case “was investigated for more than four years.”    Given that the indictment and trial both occurred in 2008, that would put the start of the federal probe into Ted Stevens at no later than 2004.

The Department of Justice’s official history—the OPR report—says that it was a monitored telephone conversation between VECO executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith on October 19, 2005 that shifted the spotlight of the federal probe onto Ted Stevens.    In that call, Allen and Smith discussed benefits VECO had provided to Ted Stevens in the form of renovations at Stevens’ Girdwood residence.    The OPR report then states:   “Thereafter, the government obtained additional information about the Girdwood renovations, noting that Stevens had not reported the benefits on his United States Senate Public Financial Disclosure Reports for the corresponding years.”

Whatever the precise date federal investigators started looking hard at Ted Stevens, it is clear that very shortly after that telephone call the leadership of the Anchorage-based U.S. Attorney’s Office wanted no part of the probe.

On November 5, 2005, the Justice Department approved what the OPR report describes as an “office wide” recusal of that office based on the office’s concern “[g]iven the high degree of sensitivity of such an investigation and the controversy likely to be engendered by investigating such individuals in the close knit Alaskan community.”

This recusal left the Public Integrity Section in charge of the federal probe into Alaska public corruption.   Despite that “office wide” recusal, the investigation also proceeded with the assistance of two Anchorage-based Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke.

In practice, this recusal made Marsh Polar Pen’s “top dog,” as veteran Anchorage attorney Jeff Feldman told New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin.  This development meant that Bottini—who had been a prosecutor for approximately 20 years—was effectively supervised on POLAR PEN by a lawyer with about 10 percent of his experience as a prosecutor.

The Polar Pen prosecution team increased to four in 2006 with the addition of Edward Sullivan, who was immediately assigned to the probe upon his joining Public Integrity.   (Confusingly, three unrelated Sullivans played significant roles in the Ted Stevens case—there was Edward Sullivan the prosecutor, Emmet Sullivan the trial judge, and Brendan Sullivan the chief defense counsel.)   Edward Sullivan had been a lawyer for 10 years when he started on Polar Pen, and he—like Marsh and Goeke—had clerked for a federal judge.    (It is a telling social commentary that the OPR report details federal clerking experience of these three lawyers while omitting Bottini’s experience clerking for a state court judge.)    Despite Edward Sullivan’s impressive resume, his prosecutorial experience was zero.

The Grand Juries Hear Evidence, While a Logical Source of Help Goes Largely Untapped

The Polar Pen team presented evidence regarding Ted Stevens to grand juries between November of 2006 and June of 2008.   One grand jury sat in Anchorage, and the other sat in Washington, D.C.   Despite the use of the grand jury in the nation’s capital, the Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office had no significant involvement in the Ted Stevens case.

This was too bad for the prosecution, particularly since the Justice Department was aiming for a possible trial in Washington.    As Washington Post reporter Carrie Johnson pointed out after the government’s case collapsed in 2009, the government’s path could have been smoother if the Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office had been part of the case, thereby adding “players who were familiar with the courthouse and the personality of the trial judge.”   Such a role for that office would have not been at all unprecedented in a major public corruption case.   The Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office ran the prosecution of U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D.-Illinois), the long-time chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, that produced his guilty plea in 1996 and a sentence that put him in federal custody for 17 months.

There are varying explanations for the lack of significant participation by the Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of Ted Stevens.    That 2009 Washington Post story reported that prosecutors in that office “were consulted about the Stevens case starting in 2006 but declined to participate, thinking that the charges were shaky, according to sources familiar with the discussions.”    That article also stated that sources said “The assistant U.S. attorneys also considered overly aggressive the prosecutors’ early plan, later abandoned, to get a warrant to search the lawmaker’s D.C. area home….”

On the other hand, the OPR report suggests that it was the competition for glory that blocked the participation of the Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office, not that office’s perception that the Polar Pen team was on the wrong track with Ted Stevens.

Glen Donath, an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Fraud and Public Corruption Section of the Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office, did attend at least one grand jury session in Washington in April of 2007 regarding Ted Stevens.   The Public Integrity Section ran him off the case quickly, however.   Donath—who had previously served on the team defending President Clinton at the impeachment trial—ended his slight participation in the Ted Stevens case after Public Integrity officials communicated to him that he was not needed and that any role he would play would be minor and merely an accommodation to his superiors.    Edward Sullivan told OPR that Public Integrity Section Chief William Welch spelled it out more bluntly, conveying the message that Donath was “coming in late” and would be viewed as a “fifth wheel.”

Charges the Justice Department Considered

Contemporaneous media reports in the Anchorage Daily News, the Associated Press, and Roll Call showed that the federal government conducted a wide-ranging investigation of Ted Stevens and his close associates.   As detailed in that coverage and in interviews, this probe included an examination of legislative assistance Ted Stevens had provided that had benefitted his son Ben (who was by 2006 President of the Alaska State Senate), Ted Stevens’ former long-time legislative aide Trevor McCabe, and Anchorage businessmen who had engaged in real estate deals with Ted Stevens that the Senator bragged about publicly.   As part of this investigation, the FBI Interviewed former state legislator and activist Ray Metcalfe, who had accumulated evidence to support allegations regarding real estate transactions and fisheries legislation.   The Justice Department also perceived early on in the investigation that tax charges could be brought against Ted Stevens, and the OPR report says that IRS agents remained part of the prosecution team through the Ted Stevens trial.

In the end, however, the prosecution’s charges did not relate to real estate transactions, fisheries legislation, or income taxes, and the word “earmark” appeared nowhere in the 28-page indictment issued on July 29, 2008.

Instead, the prosecution focused during the three-month period before the issuance of the indictment on five charges:

  • Bribery under 18 U.S. Code Subsec. 201(b)(2);
  • Illegal gratuities under 18 U.S. Code Subsec. 201(c)(1)(B);
  • Honest-services fraud under 18 U.S. Code Secs. 1341-1351;
  • -Conversion of services of government employees for personal use under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 641; and
  • False statements, by concealment under 18 U.S. Code Subsec. 1001(a)(1) and by omission under 18 U.S. Code Subsec. 1001(a)(2).

Except for the potential conversion charge—which concerned Ted Stevens’ alleged use of Senate staff members to pay the personal bills of himself and his family—all these potential charges would have related to things of value received by Ted Stevens and not reported on mandatory annual Senate disclosure forms.   Most of those things of value involved renovations to the Senator’s Girdwood home provided by Bill Allen and/or VECO.

There’s a common problem with the three charges listed above regarding Ted Stevens.    Conviction under the bribery or illegal gratuities statutes requires “official acts” in connection with the crimes.   Honest-services fraud—a favorite arrow in the federal prosecutor’s quiver before the U.S. Supreme Court sharply restricted the reach of the statute in 2010—does not explicitly require a quid pro quo between the receipt of a specific thing of value and a specific official act.   With honest services fraud, prosecutors have tended to look to prove the defendant received a stream of things of value in exchange for a series of official acts.

At least one line prosecutor pushed hard for the inclusion of one or more of these counts in the Ted Stevens indictment.     Higher-ups at the Department of Justice, however, seemed to perceive that Stevens had delivered so much for so many Alaskans over four decades that it was difficult to say that the Senator was motivated by gifts to do official acts.    Those supervisors appeared to understand that it was difficult to throw a rock in any populated place on the Last Frontier and not hit somebody who had benefitted from an official act of “Uncle Ted”—whether it was a local appropriation or intervention with the federal bureaucracy—and that the great majority of those who had received help from the Senator had never given him a penny in campaign contributions, much less gifts (and had certainly never given his son Ben a lobbying or consulting contract).

It would have probably fortified the Justice Department brass in their rejection of bribery/illegal gratuities charges/honest services fraud charges against Ted Stevens if they had been aware of a conversation the lead FBI agent on Polar Pen had with a journalist in May of 2008.   Mary Beth Kepner met with reporter Tony Hopfinger at a coffee shop in midtown Anchorage.    This meeting occurred more than nine months after the FBI had executed a search warrant on the Senator’s Girdwood home and in the final throes of the Justice Department’s decision on the indictment.   In the conversation—later recounted in Crude Awakening, a book by Hopfinger and Amanda Coyne, and in a recent interview with Hopfinger—Kepner speculated that Allen had bribed Ted Stevens by renovating the Senator’s house.   The FBI agent then asked the reporter:   “What do you think the quid pro quo was?”

Given that this conversation occurred after the FBI had been investigating Ted Stevens for at least 2.5 years and in the last 90 days before the Justice Department announced the indictment, it was surprising that the lead FBI agent on the Ted Stevens investigation would at that point ask a reporter in a coffee shop for that reporter’s opinion on a critical element of a case against Ted Stevens.    (Then again, Kepner was known for her ability to get people to tell her things, and playing dumb is one well-known way to do that.)

The prosecutors also considered a charge of conversion.   This charge would have been based on evidence that the Senator had for years arranged for Senate staff members to work on the Congressional clock to pay from his personal account his family’s personal bills—including his wife’s credit card bills, the family’s regular household bills, and the bills for the Senator’s participation in a horse racing partnership.  The 1994 indictment against another Congressional titan—Rep. Rostenkowski—had included a charge of conversion of federal funds based on the Congressman’s alleged use of Congressional staff members working on federal time to perform personal services for Rostenkowski.    As laid out in a 2007 article by John Stanton in Roll Call, Ted Stevens’ alleged use of a Senate staff member making more than $150,000 annually to serve as his “personal bookkeeper” substantially exceeded the occasional de minimis personal tasks some Senators asked of their own Senate staff.

Although Polar Pen’s line prosecutors expressed to their superiors in the spring of 2008 their belief that the evidence and the law supported a conversion charge against Ted Stevens, those lower-level lawyers advised against pursuing such a charge because it would significantly distract from a prosecution based on the Senator’s alleged falsehoods in his annual disclosure forms.    (The prosecution did use evidence that the above-described Senate staff member routinely paid Catherine Stevens’ department store credit card bills while cross-examining the Senator’s wife at his trial.)


On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. “In nearly 25 years on the bench,” he said, “I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”

It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury.

The Stevens case is a cautionary tale. It reminds lawyers and nonlawyers alike of the power and failures of our legal system and those who have sworn to uphold the rule of law. At the center of the story are real people: an old and powerful politician, a crack defense team, determined prosecutors, and their supervisors.

“This is a fascinating case study for all lawyers,” says criminal defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group, P.C. “In these high-stakes cases, both sides can get pretty aggressive and push the envelope. It’s great to be aggressive—it’s great to push, but this case reminds people that they have to observe the limits and the rules.”

For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former Alaska senator be dismissed.

On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.

In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors’ handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were “too serious and too numerous” to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.

“It’s obviously a serious and not-everyday occurrence for a judge to sic an independent counsel on prosecutors,” Brand says. “It’s an auger for the Justice Department. This judge’s tolerance was pushed to the limit, and prosecutors are not going to just go on their merry way. When judges do things like this, it tends to rattle the system a bit.”

With two investigations pending—one court-appointed, the other conducted by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility—Justice Department officials say they are reviewing current discovery practices and retraining lawyers on their discovery obligations. It remains to be seen what consequences, if any, the prosecutors in this case will face.

“If all of our lives and careers were defined by our mistakes, nobody would have a job, so you hate to think that one mistake—even if it happens to be a highly publicized one—would damage someone’s career,” says Michael E. O’Neill, an associate professor who specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional law at George Mason University School of Law. “That said, prosecutors have to be absolutely fair and above board to ensure that justice is done.”

Brendan V. Sullivan Jr., Stevens’ defense lawyer and a senior partner at Williams & Connolly LLP, described the misconduct of prosecutors as “stunning.” He says the case is a sad story and a warning to everyone that any citizen can be convicted “if prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution and willing to present false evidence.”

But Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, says in a statement, “As we move forward in the continuing fight against public corruption, it is essential that the Criminal Division learns from the Stevens prosecution and its aftermath.”

Balance of Power
It is a common occurrence, especially in criminal cases: Lawyers who are battling it out in court push for every procedural advantage; they overstep their bounds and must be reined back in by the judge. There often are accusations that one side or the other is failing to produce evidence. But in the Stevens case, transcripts of multiple hearings show Judge Sullivan continuously reprimanding prosecutors for withholding discovery evidence.

Over the past few years, a series of high-profile scandals have rocked the Justice Department. For example, the department faced public outrage over its hiring process for U.S. attorneys under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the revelation of the Justice Department’s role in the so-called “torture memos,” and ongoing questions about aggressive prosecutorial tactics. For some, the Stevens case represents a government entity that had developed a “total indifference to ethics.”

“This has built up over the years—the people at [the Justice Department] have come to believe that they are immune, that nobody can touch them, and that judges will ignore their prosecutorial misconduct,” says Joseph E. diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and a founding partner and criminal defense attorney at diGenova & Toensing, LLP.

Concerns also have been expressed about the timing of the Stevens case, with the indictment coming just months before Stevens was up for reelection in his home state. The jury verdict against Stevens came eight days before Election Day. Subsequently, he lost to Democrat Mark Begich in an extraordinarily close contest, the effects of which benefit the Democrats. There are 60 members in the Senate’s Democratic Caucus, giving the party a firewall against bill-derailing filibusters. Had Stevens been able to keep his seat, Democrats would have 59 members, one short of the key 60-member vote.

DiGenova says that the “consequences of what the prosecutors did are remarkable” and the harm incalculable. “Had things been different, Stevens would have been elected. Prosecutors actually determined the outcome of the balance of power in the U.S. Senate by their misconduct. They affected politics in the United States,” he adds.

The Prosecutors
The Justice Department probe into Stevens and other Alaskan officials, known as Operation Polar Pen, lasted several years. Lawyers from Washington fought with lawyers from Alaska over how to handle the case and whether to bring charges in Alaska or the District of Columbia.

Some observers blame the subsequent problems in part on the lawyers’ personal conflicts and poor management. Others suggest that the Justice Department lawyers were no match for the stars that formed the defense team—they knew it and felt pressure to find any advantage they could.

But in actuality, some of the Justice Department’s finest lawyers handled the case. The trial team was part of an elite group of prosecutors in the Public Integrity (PIN) Section, with experience pursuing high-profile and complex cases.

The PIN Section, which comprises about 30 lawyers, investigates and prosecutes corruption in all levels of government. Between 2001 and 2007, it brought public corruption charges against 416 individuals, winning 371 convictions. And just recently, the section was praised for its investigation of Washington lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff.

Seasoned litigator Brenda K. Morris, principal deputy chief of the PIN Section, was not assigned to the prosecution team until late into the investigation. A native Washingtonian, Morris received her juris doctor from Howard University and trained as a prosecutor in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. She moved back to Washington, D.C., and joined the PIN Section in 1991. Promoted in 2004, Morris supervised high-profile cases, including the Abramoff probe and a series of cases involving the theft of funds meant for the Iraqi reconstruction. She is also an adjunct law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Brand, who has opposed her in cases, describes Morris as “fair, forthright, and sensitive to the facts.”

Chuck Rosenberg, Morris’ lawyer and a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP, declined comment.

The rest of the prosecution team included Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan, Washington, D.C.-based trial lawyers. And then there were the Alaska-based lawyers, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke.

Overseeing the case as supervisory attorney was William M. Welch II, chief of the PIN Section. Welch grew up in Massachusetts, the son of a local judge. He received his law degree from Northwestern University School of Law and worked in several parts of the Justice Department, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Springfield, Massachusetts. There, Welch made his name prosecuting a serial killer nurse and Springfield City administrators for corruption. In 2006 Welch was recruited to Washington, D.C., and has been the head of the section since 2007. Prior to the Stevens meltdown, Welch allegedly was angling to be the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts.

“Bill is the hardest working prosecutor I’ve ever worked with,” says Kevin J. Cloherty, a former supervisory attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts. “He is of the highest ethical standards and is dedicated to public service and doing the right thing.”

The Defense
Stevens was represented by Brendan Sullivan and Robert M. Cary, along with a team of nine other lawyers, two paralegals, and an information technology professional. Well known for his legal finesse and trial skills, Brendan Sullivan is at ease in the public spotlight. His legal career includes defending Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros. Sullivan is famous for uttering the lines, “I’m not a potted plant. I’m here as the lawyer. That’s my job,” during a congressional hearing in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Brendan Sullivan has “a sort of quiet presence, but he has strength in his voice and can modulate—raise it for a very important point,” says Michael Madigan, a litigation partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and a former federal prosecutor. “He’s one of the best lawyers in the country.”

The younger Cary, also a partner at Williams & Connolly, has represented his share of prominent clients and teaches a trial advocacy class at Georgetown University Law Center. Cary previously had worked with Brendan Sullivan on several cases, including the defense of former Cendant Corporation chair Walter Forbes in a fraud case.

In negotiations before trial, Stevens and his defense team refused a plea agreement. Instead, they opted for their right to a speedy trial in the hopes Stevens’ name could be cleared in time for him to return to Alaska and win reelection. There were only 56 days between indictment and trial.

“For us, it was simple,” Cary says. “We thought we owed it to him to try to resolve the case before the election. It may be the only time we’ve ever asked for a speedy trial.”

That made preparing for trial a relentless project. The trial team worked on the case day and night, meeting twice a day over lunch and dinner.

Stevens, 84 when indicted, had been in Alaska politics since before its statehood. As the longest-serving Republican in Congress, Stevens wielded extraordinary power. A World War II veteran, Stevens earned his law degree at Harvard Law School. He served as U.S. Attorney in Fairbanks, Alaska, before moving on first to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1964 and then the U.S. Senate in 1968.

Stevens’ clout in the Senate came from his longevity and his position as chair of the Appropriations Committee until 2005. His home sits at the base of Girdwood, Alaska, a ski resort. Once modest, the chalet had been expanded and remodeled to encompass 10 rooms and three bathrooms.

A Friendly Letter
The crux of the prosecution case was that Stevens had failed to list on Senate disclosure forms about $250,000 in goods and services he had received, mostly in the remodeling of his home, from oil services company VECO Corporation. For years VECO executives have been known to be top contributors to Alaska politicians. Ultimately, the case hinged on the testimony of Bill Allen, the senator’s personal friend pal—and cofounder and former chief executive officer of VECO—who spearheaded the remodeling project by hiring workers and providing the materials. Allen testified at trial that he never billed his friend for work on his house, and that Stevens knew he was getting special treatment.

Stevens was on the witness stand for three days. He said his wife paid their bills, and that, living in Washington, he could not possibly monitor the project.

Both sides fought over the meaning of an October 2002 letter from Stevens to Allen asking for a bill.

The letter read:

When I think of the many ways in which you make my life easier and more enjoyable, I lose count! Thanks for all the work on the Chalet. You owe me a bill—remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing—compliance with the ethics rules entirely different. I asked Bob P to talk to you about this, so don’t get PO’d at him–it’s [sic] just has to be done right.

Torricelli was a reference to Robert Torricelli, the former Democratic U.S. congressman and senator from New Jersey who was accused of receiving illicit gifts from a campaign donor.

Allen testified at trial that the note was Stevens’ effort of “covering his ass.” Allen said on the stand that he had been told by Stevens’ friend Bob Persons to ignore the letter because the senator had written it to provide a false record to protect himself.

“That was a devastating piece of testimony delivered right before a break, as skillful lawyers do,” Cary says. “As bad luck would have it, a juror got sick that afternoon, which meant that that testimony was left to resonate with the jury for several days.”

Brady Battles
As any law student knows, prosecutors must disclose any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a case. The so-called Brady Rule stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland.[1]

Throughout the trial, government and defense lawyers battled over the Justice Department’s production of evidence. Judge Sullivan considered declaring a mistrial, but he decided against it. On several occasions, the judge admonished the prosecution and even struck the use of certain evidence.

Prosecutors, Cary says, purposely produced discovery information late, “in the middle of trial, when we had little time to incorporate it into our strategy and use it effectively.”

Cary says the defense team was “incredibly distracted by the demands of briefing all of the issues that came up due to the prosecutors’ failure to provide information to which we were entitled.”

According to court documents, prosecutors told defense counsel before trial that Allen had said he believed Stevens would not pay the invoice. However, two FBI reports, known as 302 Forms, contained contradictory statements from Allen, in which he said he believed Stevens would have paid the invoice. The defense did not initially receive the FBI reports, even after court orders to turn over all Brady evidence. In fact, one of Allen’s statements was actually redacted from a report by an FBI agent before it was given to defense lawyers.

Finally, October 1, 2008, on the eve of Allen’s cross-examination at around 11 p.m., prosecutors produced the 302s showing that Allen had twice told the FBI he believed Stevens would have paid the invoice, which was in direct conflict with his testimony at trial.

During a hearing the next day, Judge Sullivan scolded prosecutors for failing to produce the evidence prior to trial and then stalling, despite court orders to hand it over. Judge Sullivan said, “It strikes me that this was probably intentional. I find it unbelievable that this was just an error.”

Then came evidence that the government knowingly submitted false VECO accounting records to establish the proposition that employee David Anderson and others billed $188,000 for the renovations. The records had been used by the prosecution to show the amount of time and money spent on renovations to Stevens’ chalet—an important part of proving that Stevens had received a benefit.

At yet another hearing, Judge Sullivan said, “It’s very troubling that the government would utilize records that the government knows were false.”

According to court hearings, the judge also was angry over evidence that the prosecution sent a witness back to Alaska without informing the judge or the defense.

Conviction and Fallout
The case took a strange turn when a juror disappeared, delaying deliberations after weeks of trial testimony. The juror had said she needed to fly to California because her father died, but Judge Sullivan was unable to reach her to determine when she would return. An alternate juror took her place. (In later proceedings, the juror admitted she had lied about her father’s death and instead disappeared to go to the horse races.)

On October 27, 2008, the jury found Stevens guilty of seven felonies. Stevens did not talk to reporters, but he issued a defiant news release accusing prosecutors of misconduct while declaring, “I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have.”

The jurors left the courtroom without commenting to the media.

A day later, Brendan Sullivan wrote to then-U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking the Justice Department to “commence a formal investigation into the repeated misconduct by federal prosecutors in connection with this case.”

In November, Judge Sullivan received a letter from prosecution witness Anderson, who had worked on Stevens’ chalet. Anderson wrote that he falsely denied on the stand that he had an immunity deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. He also claimed prosecutors left him in a room filled with confidential documents in an effort to coach him. Anderson also claimed Allen had a contract to have him murdered.

The Justice Department has vehemently opposed Anderson’s allegations.

Then came the kicker. On December 2, 2008, FBI Special Agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower complaint stating that prosecutors tried to hide a witness and intentionally withheld evidence from defense lawyers. Joy further accused a fellow FBI agent of having an inappropriate relationship with Allen.

“The week or so before Christmas, we had round-the-clock litigation over whether Joy’s complaint would be made public or not,” Cary says. “We took the position that it should all be made public.”

According to a transcript of a previously sealed court hearing, Morris of the PIN Section argued that Joy’s name should not be revealed nor should the complaint be made public. Judge Sullivan ultimately released the complaint to the public with Joy’s name redacted. Subsequently, the judge grew increasingly irate when the Justice Department changed its position and said that since the complaint was made public, Joy’s name should be revealed. After portions of the complaint were made public, the Justice Department then argued that it would be easier to respond in court filings if all the names were revealed. The Justice Department also said Joy had no whistleblower status, but then it changed its mind on that. In January 2009 Judge Sullivan made public the details, along with Joy’s name. But Judge Sullivan was angry and wanted Mukasey to submit a declaration.

The week before President Barack Obama’s inauguration, Judge Sullivan demanded that Mukasey submit a declaration addressing who knew what and when about Joy’s status as a whistleblower. The postconviction scuffle continued, going as far as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which issued a temporary stay.

Judge Sullivan ordered full discovery on Joy’s whistleblower status. The Justice Department then made yet another error—prosecutors only handed the discovery to the judge, not the defense.

“That was a court order. That wasn’t a request,” Judge Sullivan said at a February 13 hearing. “I didn’t ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts….Isn’t the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?”

Judge Sullivan then held Morris, Welch, and Patricia Stemler, chief of the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to turn over documents.

At this point, the Justice Department removed its prosecutors from the case and assigned a new team, which found additional evidence that had never been handed to the defense.

April Fools
On April Fools’ Day, U.S. Attorney General Holder announced that the Justice Department would move to dismiss the indictment “in the interest of justice.”

“After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial,” Holder said in a statement.

On April 7, Judge Sullivan dismissed Stevens’ conviction and ordered the Schuelke investigation. Schuelke, a partner at Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler, served seven years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia before turning to private practice in 1979. He declined comment for this story.

“Judge Sullivan is one of the most liked judges on the bench,” says Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and constitutional law professor at the George Washington University Law School. “He is smart and courteous and even-keeled. To get Judge Sullivan that irate, it takes monumental misconduct.”

The dismissal was announced, Stevens’ family sobbed, and Stevens gave a raised-fist salute. The hearing ended with applause in the courtroom. Outside the courthouse, Stevens posed for pictures with his family, declaring, “I’m going to enjoy this wonderful day.”

Brady and Its Progeny
In Brady, a jury convicted the defendant of murder after the state withheld a confession by a codefendant who admitted being the killer. The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence violates due process when the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment.

Subsequent cases have clarified the prosecutor’s duty to disclose. In Giglio v. United States,[2] the Supreme Court extended the obligations of prosecutors to include impeachment evidence. Additionally, the Jencks Act governs the production of statements of government witnesses.

However, defense attorneys and criminal procedure experts say that prosecutors routinely provide information late and reluctantly. But it is rare, they say, that a case is so riddled with apparent violations, especially one that goes to the core of the case.

“Many cases have small Brady violations, but this is something that is pretty extraordinary—an interview that directly contradicts the testimony of the leading witness would have obviously been used,” Turley says. “There’s no question it would have undermined the credibility of the witness.”

Not surprisingly, Stevens’ lawyers are convinced that the failure to disclose led to the conviction. “It’s our belief that they never would have elicited that testimony from Bill Allen if they knew we had this evidence at the time,” Cary says. “It was the heart of the government’s case that there was a so-called scheme to conceal information, and the letter went to the heart of our defense that Senator Stevens was acting in good faith.

“It was our position that the ‘covering his ass’ testimony was a fabrication, and the notes that were produced months after the trial proved that this was a fabrication. ”

One still-unanswered question is, Was there a deliberate intention to withhold evidence, a series of mistakes, or some combination of motives? George Mason University’s O’Neill describes intentional Brady violations as relatively rare, but says that inadvertent failure to turn over evidence is far more common “especially when you have a lot of attorneys working on something, like a complicated fraud case.”

“It’s always possible that something could slip through the cracks,” O’Neill says.

Blame Game
Some outside observers question whether the prosecutors’ zeal got out of hand, and Welch looked the other way or even encouraged tactics that may have crossed the line.

“It is fundamentally unfair to criticize Bill Welch for supervision failures in connection with the Stevens discovery,” says his lawyer Bill Taylor, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. “The head of the Public Integrity Section, even in high-profile cases, does not get involved in the management of discovery. The trial team consisted of extremely experienced prosecutors who had been involved in the Polar Pen cases from the beginning. He had no reason to believe they were not complying with their constitutional obligations to turn over material favorable to the accused.”

Matthew W. Friedrich, former head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, approved Morris’ addition to the team around the time of the indictment. Persons familiar with the trial team say that Morris’ late arrival on the team—and questions over who was to be in charge of the case—created tension. The other four main lawyers previously had worked on other Polar Pen cases. Morris, with more trial experience and a higher position at the Justice Department, ended up taking on a larger role in the Stevens prosecution than some involved in the case had initially anticipated.

“A smooth, almost seamless trial team is critical to the success of any prosecution or defense,” Orrick’s Madigan says. “When internal bickering or whatever causes the wheels to come off, disaster is usually not far behind.”

Friedrich, now a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, declined comment on the internal decision making, but says, “I have always believed that Brenda Morris … is an outstanding attorney, with enormous experience and integrity.”

Justice Out of Control?
As criminal defense attorneys are quick to point out, the Justice Department has in the past decade been sullied by a series of high-profile case implosions and accusations of misconduct across the board, from failing to disclose evidence to using politics to choose what cases to pursue.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Justice Department aggressively pursued terrorism cases, and some of them have since been entangled in accusations of improper tactics. The PIN Section even ended up trying to prosecute one of its own former terrorism prosecutors, Richard G. Convertino, for withholding evidence in a trial.

In 2007 U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in New York described as “outrageous and shocking” threats by the Justice Department to indict KPMG LLP if the accounting firm paid the legal bills of its employees. The Justice Department’s conduct pushed Kaplan to dismiss criminal tax charges against former KPMG executives accused of participating in an illegal tax shelter.

And in January 2009, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf in Boston said that Justice Department prosecutors in Boston had a “dismal history” of failing to produce exculpatory evidence.

“The Justice Department has a certain culture,” Turley says. “It is commonplace for federal prosecutors to argue that they couldn’t imagine why something is exculpatory when it is obvious that it is.”

Some defense counsel say that part of the problem is that in recent years the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has not provided an adequate check on conduct within the department. H. Marshall Jarrett, a longtime Holder colleague, ran the Office of Professional Responsibility for 10 years. In April, however, Jarrett was reassigned to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and Mary Patrice Brown has taken the helm.

“[The Office of Professional Responsibility] has become known as the Bermuda Triangle of complaints against prosecutors. They go in, and they never go out,” diGenova says. “As a result, it’s made a mockery of the accountability process, and every seasoned lawyer knows it’s a mockery.”

There are new concerns about the propriety of the PIN Section. In June the Justice Department requested the release from prison of two former Alaska legislators after it was revealed the lawyers from the Stevens team, excluding Morris, also failed to hand over evidence in their cases. The Criminal Division is reviewing the prosecutors’ conduct.

“There is a special obligation that the Public Integrity Section has to act according to the highest ethical standards because they are policing government conduct,” says Brand of the Brand Law Group.

Justice Continues
In the months since Judge Sullivan dismissed the charges, Cary and Brendan Sullivan have continued with their thriving legal practices. Stevens is considering writing a book about his six terms in office.

The Justice Department awaits reports from both the Office of Professional Responsibility and Schuelke’s investigation. In July Judge Sullivan signed an order giving Schuelke the power to issue subpoenas.

As of this writing, Morris and Welch remain in their same roles. Prosecutors Marsh and Edward Sullivan were transferred out of the PIN Section to the Office of International Affairs. Bottini remains at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska.

Some criminal defense lawyers say the case will have a lingering effect on the justice system. “Our system of justice is built upon having confidence that prosecutors are doing an honest and fair job,” Madigan says. “If you start to lose confidence in them, it just erodes the entire system of justice. It’s of enormous magnitude.”

But even the staunchest critics of the Justice Department admit that it is still known for being home to skillful lawyers who take to heart their job as trusted public servants.

In a July speech before the National Black Prosecutors Association, Holder said the Justice Department is reviewing how it complies with discovery obligations. “We will correct any errors and we will see to it, once again, that justice is our primary goal,” he said. “When we are wrong, we will admit our errors. When we see an affront to justice, we will rectify the problem.”

 

Notes

  1. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83.
  2. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

Source: https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2009-ted-stevens.cfm