Four partners exit Balch Bingham Law Firm as Superfund bribery scandal and related $75-million lawsuit from ex-Drummond exec keep waters swirling

Jesse S. Vogtle Jr.

Four partners have left the embattled Birmingham law firm of Balch Bingham, apparent fallout from the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal and a related $75-million lawsuit that is pending. One of the exiting partners, Jesse S. Vogtle Jr., has particularly deep ties to Balch's primary corporate partners -- Southern Company and Alabama Power -- according to a report at banbalch.com. Writes Publisher K.B. Forbes:

A crippling blow: Jesse S. Vogtle, Jr., the long-time Balch and Bingham partner, and three of his fellow partners have left the embattled firm, according to a report . . .  in the Birmingham Business Journal.

Vogtle symbolized the longtime relationship between Alabama Power and Balch Bingham.

Vogtle was at Balch for over 31 years and has now joined Nashville-based Waller Lansden Dortch and Davis LLP along with his colleagues Randolph H. Lanier, Eric T. Ray, and Paul H. Greenwood.

Vogtle’s grandfather, Alvin W. Vogtle, had been the Chairman and President of Southern Company, Alabama Power’s parent company, before retiring in 1983. A nuclear power plant currently under construction in Georgia is named after his grandfather who also had served as a fighter-pilot during World War II.

Vogtle’s father, Jesse S. Vogtle Sr., was a partner at Balch Bingham decades ago before assuming an executive position at Alabama Power.

How dramatic is the Balch Bingham breakup? Forbes compares it, perhaps with tongue and cheek, to the friction between Meghan, Harry, and the British Royal Family:

Southern Tradition includes cronyism and nepotism, but this breakup, exodus appears to symbolize something worse than Megxit in the UK.

The elite enclave of Mountain Brook looks like they, too, have had enough of Balch Bingham (Vogtle, Jr. had served on the city council there), especially after Mountain Brook residents David and Anna Roberson had to sell their home and personal possessions allegedly because of Balch’s failure to tell the truth.

What about the present and the future for Balch Bingham? Both appear to be murky, Forbes reports:

And who is left holding the fort?

The illustrious Schuyler Allen Baker, Jr. another Brookie who has refused to settle the Newsome Conspiracy Case or work with us, the CDLU (Consejo de Latinos Unidos), to bring necessary change to Balch and end the unsavory if not criminal conduct at the firm.

And there are three more controversies coming:

(1) The Newsome Conspiracy Case is still active and new discoveries in the past week could expose Balch’s alleged perjury and unethical conduct wide open. (Ironically, before becoming an attorney, Burt Newsome used to refer work to Vogtle, Jr. when Newsome worked at AmSouth Bank in their Special Assets Division. Newsome had no issues with Balch Bingham until they allegedly targeted him, had him wrongly arrested in a “staged arrest,” and defamed him.)

(2) The alleged unethical, immoral, and possibly corrupt meeting and secret deal between U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town, Mike Cole, and Alabama Power CEO Mark A. Crosswhite may become a deadly stake in the heart.

(3)A new documentary on Balch Bingham will outline the matters that Balch has refused to apologize for or acknowledge.

Russian hackers and spies are seeking Ukraine-related dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden in apparent effort to help Donald Trump get re-elected in 2020 presidential race

Offices of a Burisma subsidiary in Kyiv, Ukraine

 

 (From Getty Images/New York Times)

 

Donald Trump is not the only person seeking dirt via Ukraine on Democratic front-runner Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. Russian hackers are doing the same thing, according to a report in The New York Times.

Does this prove 2020 collusion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to nail down on the 2016 campaign? That remains unclear, but it does suggest -- having gotten away with it once -- Russians are trying to help Trump again. Write Times reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg:

With President Trump facing an impeachment trial over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, Russian military hackers have been boring into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the affair, according to security experts.

The hacking attempts against Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served, began in early November, as talk of the Bidens, Ukraine and impeachment was dominating the news in the United States.

It is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for. But the experts say the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens — the same kind of information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment.

Is this reminiscent of Russian attacks on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee in 2016? Yes, it is:

The Russian tactics are strikingly similar to what American intelligence agencies say was Russia’s hacking of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential campaign. In that case, once they had the emails, the Russians used trolls to spread and spin the material, and built an echo chamber to widen its effect.

Then, as now, the Russian hackers from a military intelligence unit known formerly as the G.R.U., and to private researchers by the alias “Fancy Bear,” used so-called phishing emails that appear designed to steal usernames and passwords, according to Area 1, the Silicon Valley security firm that detected the hacking. In this instance, the hackers set up fake websites that mimicked sign-in pages of Burisma subsidiaries, and have been blasting Burisma employees with emails meant to look like they are coming from inside the company.

The hackers fooled some of them into handing over their login credentials, and managed to get inside one of Burisma’s servers, Area 1 said.

“The attacks were successful,” said Oren Falkowitz, a co-founder of Area 1, who previously served at the National Security Agency. Mr. Falkowitz’s firm maintains a network of sensors on web servers around the globe — many known to be used by state-sponsored hackers — which gives the firm a front-row seat to phishing attacks, and allows them to block attacks on their customers.

“The timing of the Russian campaign mirrors the G.R.U. hacks we saw in 2016 against the D.N.C. and John Podesta,” the Clinton campaign chairman, Mr. Falkowitz said. “Once again, they are stealing email credentials, in what we can only assume is a repeat of Russian interference in the last election.”

Russia's dirt-digging campaign is not limited to the digital world; it also involves good old-fashioned, on-the-ground spying in Ukraine. And it appears Russia's efforts to boost Trump did not end with the 2016 campaign; they continued from his earliest days in the White House:

The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens, according to an American security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. The spies, the official said, are trying to penetrate Burisma and working sources in the Ukrainian government in search of emails, financial records and legal documents.

The Russian government did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did Burisma.

American officials are warning that the Russians have grown stealthier since 2016, and are again seeking to steal and spread damaging information and target vulnerable election systems ahead of the 2020 election.

In the same vein, Russia has been working since the early days of Mr. Trump’s presidency to turn the focus away from its own election interference in 2016 by seeding conspiracy theories about Ukrainian meddling and Democratic complicity.

The result has been a muddy brew of conspiracy theories that mix facts, like the handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized Mr. Trump’s candidacy, with discredited claims that the D.N.C.’s email server is in Ukraine and that Mr. Biden, as vice president, had corrupt dealings with Ukrainian officials to protect his son. Spread by bots and trolls on social media, and by Russian intelligence officers, the claims resonated with Mr. Trump, who views talk of Russian interference as an attack on his legitimacy.

Any dirt that might surface on Joe Biden likely would revolve around his son, Hunter:

The corruption allegations hinge on Hunter Biden’s work on the Burisma board. The company hired Mr. Biden while his father was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, including a successful push to have Ukraine’s top prosecutor fired for corruption. The effort was backed by European allies.

The story has since been recast by Mr. Trump and some of his staunchest defenders, who say Mr. Biden pushed out the prosecutor because Burisma was under investigation and his son could be implicated. Rudolph W. Giuliani, acting in what he says was his capacity as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, has personally taken up investigating the Bidens and Burisma, and now regularly claims to have uncovered clear-cut evidence of wrongdoing.

The evidence, though, has yet to emerge, and now the Russians appear to have joined the hunt.

All of this raises a few obvious questions. If Russians obtained dirt on the Bidens, with whom would they likely share it? The answer seems to be the Trump campaign and administration? Would this point to the kind of criminal collusion that Mueller failed to pin down in his probe of the 2016 campaign? It sure looks like it from here.

Missouri resident Scott J. Wells withdraws guilty plea in child-pornography case and rids himself of lawyer Brady Musgrave, who pressured him to make the plea

Scott J. Wells

A Missouri man who has been detained for almost three years on baseless child-pornography charges went into a recent federal hearing hoping to: (a) withdraw a guilty plea; (b) get rid of the court-appointed attorney who pressured him into the plea; (c) receive another court-appointed attorney (his fourth), hopefully one with at least a smidgen of integrity; and (d) be released from detention. Scott Wells accomplished items (a), (b), and (c), while failing (so far) only on item (d), court records show.

Based on what I've seen of federal court hearings, winning on three of four issues is a pretty strong outcome -- especially when your compromised previous attorney still is trying to get you to plead guilty, right up to the last moment, and you remain detained (it appears) largely because of statements from the prosecutor that are false, incomplete, or both.

Scott J. Wells, of Springfield, hardly is out of the woods in the child-porn case. But he is rid of the guilty plea that attorney Brady Musgrave pressured him into filing, he has appeared for the first time before U.S. District Judge Doug Harpool (as opposed to U.S. Magistrate David P. Rush, who royally has screwed up this case), and he has multiple grounds for a new attorney, Stuart P. Huffman of Whiteaker Wilson, to get the charges dismissed -- if Huffman, unlike previous court appointees Musgrave, Shane Cantin, and David Mercer, will fulfill the duty he is sworn to uphold.

A trial date is set for March 16, 2020, but well before then, Huffman should file documents to get the charges dismissed on at least three grounds: (1) The criminal complaint is deficient because it alleges that Wells committed offenses that are physically impossible to commit; (2) The indictment is deficient because it only copies statutory language and fails to cite any "particulars" re: offenses Wells supposedly committed; and (3) A search of Wells' home was conducted without probable cause, meaning evidence should be suppressed as unlawfully obtained.

Here were some of the key moments in the most recent hearing:


(1) Even a reputable judge makes goofy comments from the bench --  Doug Harpool should be a far better judge in the Wells case than magistrate David Rush, who pressed his lips against the prosecution's butt at every opportunity. Barack Obama appointed Harpool, a Democrat, to the federal bench in 2014, and I know enough about Harpool to believe he can be a fair and competent judge. [Full disclosure: I have known Harpool for years; we went to junior high school together, played on the same basketball team at South Kickapoo Junior High (now Cherokee Middle School) and played on the same youth baseball team (Dave's Angels) for one year. I've always liked Doug and considered him a good guy and would be very surprised and disappointed if he did not see U.S. v. Scott J. Wells for the garbage that it is and dismiss it. Still, Harpool reportedly made some statements in court that I find goofy and disturbing:

(a) He accused Wells of "wasting taxpayer dollars" by using four court-appointed attorneys -- Wells not only is entitled to an attorney, he is entitled to a vigorous and competent defense. His first three lawyers did nothing to defend him, and it remains to be seen if Stuart Huffman will break that mold. He's had plenty of time to file dismissal documents, and he apparently has not done it. If anyone is wasting taxpayer dollars it is prosecutor James J. Kelleher who brought charges without a whiff of probable cause.

Doug Harpool

(b) He said Wells has been detained "because that's what usually happens in these cases" -- That is a sorry-ass answer. We don't hold people behind bars in this country because that has happened to someone else facing similar charges. We only do it if the facts and law say the accused should be detained. Rush never conducted a serious inquiry on the detention issue, apparently buying prosecutor James Kelleher's every argument, which were not necessarily in line with reality. Court documents indicate Wells was detained largely based on his state conviction in a 2004 child sexual-abuse case. But the federal court seems to conveniently ignore that the state court overturned that conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel from my brother, David Shuler, and a finding that at least one accusing witness had testified falsely under oath about the presence of scars on Wells' penis. Harpool should vacate Rush's ruling and conduct a new hearing on the issue.

(c) Harpool reminds Wells that he faces "serious charges" -- Actually the charges are not serious, and Harpool would know that if he read the criminal complaint closely. It alleges that Wells engaged in misconduct that is physically impossible to commit. It's in the complaint, in black and white. Huffman, Scott Wells' new attorney, needs to bring that to the court's attention ASAP and get the charges dismissed.


(2) Prosecutor James Kelleher makes false or incomplete statements to the court to justify Scott Wells' unlawful detention -- According to Wells' family members, Kelleher told Harpool that Wells should remain detained because, after his sexual abuse conviction was overturned, he pleaded guilty to child endangerment in the 2004 -- and, as a matter of law, that makes Wells a "danger to society." This appears to be a repeat of Kelleher's argument before Rush, upon which we reported earlier -- complete with transcripts of the proceedings. Here, from one transcript, is what Kelleher argued before Rush, in March 2017:

The complaint obviously sets forth the facts supporting Mr. Wells' most recent involvement with child exploitation. There is also reference to the fact that back in 2004, he was convicted of sexual misconduct, statutory sodomy, incest, and child molestation in Circuit Court of Greene County. I am, of course, aware of that conviction, as I was the prosecutor who handled that -- that trial. It's frankly unbelievable that he is back before this court after being given the break that he was in relation to that case. The fact that he admitted that child pornography popped up on his computer is, obviously, ludicrous. The evidence in this case is overwhelming. The defendant's pleas to child endangerment, as well as the most recent conduct, clearly mark him as a danger to society. And consequently, Your Honor, I respectfully suggest to the Court that pretrial detention in this matter is appropriate.

Here is our analysis of Kelleher's statement, pointing out its serious flaws:

There you have it: Kelleher clearly bases his call for detention on a 2004 conviction that was overturned -- and Kelleher conveniently fails to mention that to the court. Kelleher also fails to mention that Wells' plea to child endangerment was an Alford plea, with no indication in the court record that Wells actually endangered anyone.

Here is how we described the Alford plea in the Wells case, an issue the prosecution generally has tried to avoid in the federal matter -- and that probably is because it blows their case for detention to kingdom come:

Wells agreed to an Alford plea of child endangerment to dispense with the first case. Trial Judge Don Burrell probably could have dismissed the whole case once a complaining witness was found to have lied about penis scars. But Burrell chose to overturn the conviction and give the state a chance to re-try, meaning Wells faced the prospect of going before a pro-prosecution jury in conservative Southwest Missouri.

With an Alford plea, a criminal defendant does not admit to the unlawful act and asserts his innocence. In essence, it is a type of guilty plea that allows the prosecution to save face for bringing a weak case. Nothing in the record even hints that Scott Wells actually endangered a child. Federal prosecutors now are trying to hold that case against Wells, even though he ultimately won it.

We have more details about the Wells' Alford plea, what it actually involved, and that is coming in a future post.


(3) Why was Brady Musgrave desperate to have Scott Wells maintain his guilty plea? -- Right up until the moment Harpool allowed Wells to withdraw his guilty plea, Musgrave was pressuring Wells to keep the guilty plea in place, according to family members. Was this an act of desperation on Musgrave's part, and if so, why was he so invested in a guilty plea?

In fact, family members state that, after Harpool granted withdrawal of the guilty plea, Kelleher and Musgrave stomped out of court, one after the other. What were they pissed off about? Had someone promised one or both of them handsome compensation if they could make a guilty plea stick against Scott Wells? Did at least one of them see dollar signs floating out the window when Wells' guilty plea was withdrawn?

Sources tell us that Kelleher comes from a moneyed background and likely doesn't need any additions to his cash flow. But public documents show Brady Musgrave is enmeshed in financial turmoil and certainly could use help (along with his wife and law partner) on debt issues. Was Musgrave hoping for a financial boost from the Wells case, and who would have provided it? We don't have a clear answer to that question. But we do know Musgrave and his associates have financial problems, proving that not all attorneys are rolling in big bucks.

More details on Brady Musgrave's financial struggles in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)

Surveillance video of Jeffrey Epstein's jail cell has been "accidentally" destroyed, and that along with analysis of autopsy evidence, points to homicide, not suicide

Images from Jeffrey Epstein's autopsy and jail cell.

Federal prosecutors revealed late last week that surveillance video from Jeffrey Epstein's first "suicide attempt" at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) no longer exists -- and that adds to troubling questions about Trump attorney general William Barr's possible involvement in a murder coverup, according to a D.C.-based investigative journalist.

The latest turn in the Epstein story came when attorneys for Epstein's cellmate -- former cop and quadruple drug-ring murderer Nicholas Tartaglione -- requested the video in an apparent effort to clear their client of involvement in Epstein's death. The response from federal prosecutors? Any such video has been lost or destroyed. A new story (subscription required) at Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) says that only adds to the stench surrounding Epstein's death. Writes Madsen:

Federal prosecutors in New York have revealed that the MCC's video of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) cell where Epstein was placed with former cop Nicholas Tartaglione, charged with a quadruple homicide involving a drug ring, was "accidentally" destroyed. Epstein is said to have tried to commit suicide by hanging himself on July 23, 2019, while Tartaglione was in his cell. Under suspicion for strangling Epstein in the alleged first suicide attempt, Tartaglione's attorney requested a copy of the July 23 videotape to demonstrate that he "acted appropriately" in his sentencing. Federal prosecutors are asking for the death penalty for Tartaglione.

It is not known what Tartaglione meant by stating that he "acted appropriately" while Epstein tried to hang himself. Epstein's attorney claimed that marks on Epstein's neck were more indicative of a strangling attempt, not an attempted suicide by hanging. Epstein had apparently passed information to his relatives that his first injuries were sustained as the result of a physical attack, and that it was Tartaglione who assaulted him.

How could an exceptionally dangerous bad actor, such as Tartaglione, be placed anywhere near the alleged sex trafficker Epstein, who because of his ties to Trump, was perhaps the nation's most high-profile inmate at the time? That is one of many head-scratchers in this case. Writes Madsen:

It is clear that Tartaglione is trying to bargain his way out of a death sentence. What is not clear is what the July 23 videotape, had it not been destroyed, would have shown. In a January 9 letter a federal judge, prosecutors stated that the MCC "inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier," adding that the video from Epstein's and Tartaglione's cell "no longer exists." Earlier, prosecutors told the judge that the tape had been "lost." They then changed their story to state that the video they discovered was trained on the wrong cell.

It defies logic that one of the government's most secure correctional facilities, the one that held Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel chieftain "El Chapo" and Gambino family kingpin John Gotti during their trials, could have destroyed a videotape on its most high-profile inmate.

How ugly could Tartaglione's possible ties to Epstein's death get? The answer is "off-the-charts" ugly, as Madsen explains:

Just prior to Epstein's arrival at the MCC following his arrest at a New Jersey airport, Tartaglione had been found with a contraband cell phone. There is a distinct possibility that Tartaglione received orders over the cell phone to kill Epstein at the first practical opportunity. Tartaglione is now claiming that he "acted appropriately" in the cell with Epstein. In Targtaglione's world of gangland-style murders, "acting appropriately" might mean that he tried to carry out his orders to off Epstein, but, for some reason, Epstein managed to survive the attempted strangulation.

Once Epstein survived the first "suicide" event, did someone in authority takes steps to make sure he was safe? Nope:

After Epstein was found semi-conscious in his cell on July 23, he was moved to a special cell where he was placed under a suicide watch. An MCC psychologist later approved Epstein's removal from the suicide watch and back to the SHU. On August 10, Epstein was found strangled to death from what was reported to have been a noose crafted from a torn orange bed sheet. There are reports that “shrieking” and “shouting” were heard from Epstein’s cell shortly before his body was discovered by guards.

A cellmate was to have been with Epstein, but he had been transferred from Epstein's cell the day before the alleged suicide. Contrary to established procedures, no replacement cellmate was with Epstein.

In November of last year, two MCC guards, who were instructed to check on Epstein every 30 minutes, were criminally charged with failure to conduct the checks and falsifying official work logs to show that the inspections had been made. The two guards failed to check on Epstein for 8 hours. The two guards, Michael Thomas and Tova Noel, are subject to a strict gag order not to talk to the press pursuant to the charging document.

Who might have wanted to ensure that Epstein wound up dead? Madsen spells out possible scenarios:

Tartaglione had both the means and the motive to carry out a contract hit on Epstein. He was present in Epstein's cell during the first attempted "hanging" attempt. Tartaglione is also trying to beat the death penalty.

Another individual who had the means and the motive to have Epstein murdered is Attorney General William Barr. Barr's position puts him in charge of the federal Bureau of Prisons. That gives Barr the means. Barr's motive would have been to eliminate a potential threat to Donald Trump, arising from Trump's and Epstein's earlier wild years when they allegedly participated in orgies with underage girls, raping some of them.

Barr claimed that he personally viewed the August 10 videotape of Epstein's cell, claiming that he saw no one enter the cell. However, based on the destruction of the July 23 video and Barr's demonstrated lack of veracity, Barr's attestation about the August 10 tape should be taken with a large grain of salt.

On August 26, 2019, The Washington Post reported: "At least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable, although other, clearer footage was captured in the area, according to three people briefed on the evidence gathered earlier this month. It was not immediately clear why some video footage outside Epstein’s cell is too flawed for investigators to use or what is visible in the usable footage. The incident is being investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which are attempting to determine what happened and how to assess whether any policies were violated or crimes committed."

A recent 60 Minutes report adds another twist to the Epstein story. (See video at the end of this post.) Writes Madsen:

The New York City Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein's death was the result of suicide by hanging. However, 60 Minutes recently reported that noted pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, hired by Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein, to view the four-hour autopsy conducted on Epstein's body, believed the wealthy pedophile was murdered. Baden told the CBS News program, "There were fractures of the left, the right thyroid cartilage and the left hyoid bone ...I have never seen three fractures like this in a suicidal hanging . . . Going over a thousand jail hangings, suicides in the New York City state prisons over the past 40-50 years, no one had three fractures."

Barr claims to have determined that there was no foul play involving Epstein's death from viewing a tape that was, according to the Post's Justice Department and FBI sources, "flawed." However, there was a second camera trained on Epstein's cell that was inoperative the night he died. Also, no photograph was taken of Epstein's body in the cell. Epstein's body had been moved by guards prior to EMS personnel arriving at the cell, which amounts to tampering with a crime scene.

As for AG Barr's actions related to Epstein's death, they hardly could be more curious. Writes Madsen:

A former mob associate of John Gotti, Lewis Kasman, claimed to The New York Post that Barr paid a visit to the MCC on July 23, the same day that Epstein first allegedly tried to hang himself. Barr was in Manhattan to speak at a cyber security conference. Referring to Barr's reported visit to the MCC, Kasman told the Post: "When does that happen? The attorney general never visits jails. Something’s not right there.”

Absolutely, something's not right about Barr's involvement with the Epstein case, the missing videotapes, the goldbricking prison guards, Tartaglione's story and his illegal cell phone, the autopsy findings, and Trump's failure to utter a word about his old friend's arrest and death.

Any episode of Murder She Wrote or Columbo would have tagged Barr and Tartaglione as suspects in Epstein's murder. What's wrong with the FBI?

Cops ring in the new year by putting their dishonesty and depravity on full display for the public to see

The McDonald's coffee cup at the heart of a police hoax

 It would not be a new year in the USA without mounting evidence that cops are among the most juvenile, dishonest, and deranged individuals in our society. Let's consider these stories that surfaced as the clocked ticked down from 2019 into 2020:

A Kansas Cop pins a "pig" hoax on McDonald's employees

When a 23-year-old Junction City, KS, cop claimed someone at a McDonald's had written "F --g Pig" on his coffee cup, and the police chief chose to publicize the alleged event on social media, it became a national "contempt of cop" story. But there was a slight problem with this story from the get-go -- it wasn't true, and the unidentified cop who made it up has resigned. From a report at the New York Post:

A Kansas police department has apologized after one of its cops falsely claimed he got a McDonald’s coffee with the words “F–ing Pig” written on the cup.

Herington Police Chief Brian Hornaday said in a statement . . . directed at McDonald’s employees, citizens and law enforcement officials that he was “truly sorry for all the unnecessary, negative attention and pain” that stemmed from the incident.

“We hope that this is remembered as the act of one person and not that of the chosen few men and women who have the courage to boldly protect and serve the citizens of this great Nation,” Hornady said.

The 23-year-old cop, who hasn’t been publicly identified, made the story up “as a joke” and has resigned from the department, Hornaday told reporters at a news conference Monday.

Alabama cops make a quilt to help poke holiday fun at the homeless

Two Mobile, AL, cops thought it would be clever to piece together panhandling signs confiscated around the city and piece them together into a "homeless quit." Turns out the notion of cops mocking the homeless did not go over so well. From a report at Vice News:

A police chief in Mobile, Alabama is offering his “sincerest apology” after two of his officers mocked local homeless people over the holidays with a quilt they had fashioned out of panhandling signs seized across the city.

“Although we do not condone panhandling and must enforce the city ordinances that limit panhandling, it is never out intent or desire as a police department to make light of those who find themselves in a homeless state,” Mobile Police Chief Lawrence Battiste said in a statement posted to Facebook.

Alabama cops show off their homeless quilt

Battiste’s statement followed outrage spurred by a viral photo posted to Facebook . . . by a Mobile police officer. The photo shows two uniformed officers smiling and displaying a sheet of cardboard signs taped together in what they called a “homeless quilt.” The signs, which courts nationwide have repeatedly held are protected by the First Amendment, featured statements reading “God bless” and “please help.”

The officers in the photo, Preston McGraw and Alexandre Olivier, are both recent graduates of the local police academy, according to AL.com, and the photo appears to have been taken inside an office of the police department. It’s unclear whether they’ll face any sort of discipline, and the Mobile Police Department did not immediately return a VICE News request for comment.

"Wanna wish everybody in the 4th precinct a Merry Christmas, especially our captain. Hope you enjoy our homeless quilt. Sincerely Panhandler patrol," the controversial Facebook post read, according to AL.com.

Hawaii cop decides it would be fun to force homeless man to lick toilet

 A Honolulu cop spread holiday cheer by forcing a homeless man to lick a toilet. How's that for the "spirit of the season"? From a report at Photography is not a Crime (PINAC):

On December 16 Honolulu Police Officer John Rabago admitted that he instructed a homeless man to lick a public urinal if he wanted to avoid being arrested. The homeless man has been identified as 37-year-old Samual Ingall.

PINAC News reported earlier this year how Rabago was charged with conspiring to deprive Ingall of his civil rights in connection with the Jan. 28, 2018, incident in Honolulu.

Rabago originally lied and denied the accusations, but admitted Monday in court that he told Ingall that he would not be arrested if he licked the urinal. Ingall complied stating that he would do anything to stay out of jail.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi said Rabago’s threat wasn’t a mistake or miscommunication. Kobayashi stated in court:

“You knowingly and willfully forced Ingall to lick the urinal."

The incident only gets uglier from there:

KTAR News reports that on the day of the incident officers were responding to a nuisance complaint when they found Ingall in a public restroom. Rabago and Officer Reginald Ramones were in the bathroom with Ingall when Rabago repeatedly instructed Ingall to lick the urinal, then told Ramones to close the door so that a camera would not catch what happened next.

Once defendant Ramones closed the bathroom door, co-defendant Rabago again instructed Ingall to lick the urinal. The victim then reluctantly knelt down before the urinal and licked the urinal. Co-defendant Rabago then allowed Ingall to gather his possessions and leave the bathroom.

Rabago followed Ingall out of the bathroom, and laughed as he told officers outside about what had just happened.

Rabago said "the incident was 'just like what happened at Cartwright Field'" when he had told a "man that he would avoid arrest only if he stuck his head in a toilet," according to court documents.

Later, Rabago and Ramones learned that the department and the FBI were investigating what had happened. Rabago told Ramones to delete text messages about the incident and tell investigators that he was joking when he told Ingall to lick the urinal.

Ramones was also charged with conspiring to deprive Ingall of his civil rights, but pleaded guilty to lesser charges after agreeing to cooperate with investigators.

Rabago has been on restrictive duty, and is expected to be fired. He could be sentenced to 30 months in prison.

California cop is caught on body cam fondling dead woman's breasts

A Los Angeles officer responded to a report of a possible dead body in an apartment, so the cop decided this would be an ideal time to switch off his body cam and "cop a feel." He forgot, however, an important detail: The body cam has a two-minute buffer after being switched off, so it caught the whole depraved incident on tape. Yikes. From a report at PINAC:

A Los Angeles police officer was hoping to cop a feel on the body of a woman who had died, so he turned off his body camera and began fondling the dead woman's breasts.

But the camera has a two-minute buffer that continues recording once it has been turned off.

The LAPD cop was placed on leave once his superiors reviewed the footage meaning he is probably still getting paid for sitting at home.

Both police brass and the police union are calling his actions "disturbing," indicating he may not receive the usual Blue Privilege.

Attorney from Atlanta office of Montgomery-based Beasley Allen Law Firm is investigating recent traffic-related death of Georgia magistrate judge Emily Powell

Emily Powell

A lawyer from the Atlanta office of perhaps Alabama's most prominent plaintiffs' law firm has been hired to investigate the recent death of a Georgia judge in a traffic-related incident.

Chris Glover, managing partner for the Atlanta office of the Montgomery-based Beasley Allen Law Firm, will be looking into the death of Emily Powell, a senior magistrate judge in Gwinnett County, according to a report at law.com. Powell was hit by a truck while crossing a street in Buford, GA, to meet friends for dinner on December 20. She died 11 days later and is survived by her husband, Tony Powell (attorney and former Lawrenceville city councilman); two children; and two grandchildren. From the law.com report:

[Emily Powell] died Dec. 31 from injuries sustained on Dec. 20, when she was hit by a pickup truck while crossing a street in downtown Buford. She was on her way to a dinner with her husband, Tony Powell, a senior litigation partner with Powell and Edwards of Lawrenceville, and a friend of Glover’s.

“He called me because he had a lot of questions about what happened to his wife,” Glover said. “When we first talked, we were really hoping she’d pull through.”

Glover said at this point the firm is not looking at a lawsuit but is simply on a quest for truth. “We’re hopeful to be able to tell him what happened.”

“She was a special person,” Glover said. “Something like this just turns your world upside down.”

What form will the investigation take? That is not clear yet, according to law.com:

Glover said his firm plans to interview witnesses and research any contributing factors beyond the scope of the ongoing police investigation. Topics of interest could include the configuration of the sidewalk, the design of the pickup truck that hit her and whether responsibility could reach beyond the driver.

“We’re just a few days into it,” Glover said. “Right now, all we’re doing is trying to help him answer some questions.”

In an era largely dominated by defense firms, Beasley Allen has carved a major footprint by representing plaintiffs:

Beasley Allen has offices in Atlanta and Montgomery, Alabama. The firm includes 80 attorneys and 200 support staff, and has verdicts and settlements exceeding $26 billion to its credit.The firm’s work has touched General Motors ignition switches, Takata’s air bags, Gulf Coast states devastated by the BP oil spill and injuries from drugs and medical devices.

The judge had served the Gwinnett County Magistrate Court for more than 20 years. She was a graduate of Mercer University School of Law and Davidson College in the first class that included women. She and her husband had a son and a daughter and two grandchildren.

Her obituary said her stated goal was to be the type of woman of whom the devil would say each morning, “Oh no, she’s up.”

Pelosi and House Democrats should hold articles of impeachment, and add to them, once White House is forced to produce witnesses and documents

Nancy Pelosi

What should Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats do with two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump? That seems to be the riveting political question of the moment as we head into the New Year. Recent news reports suggest the answer might be -- and we would argue it should be -- this: She should hold them and multiply them.

House Dems apparently are already thinking along those lines, including an extended review of issues related to Russia, based on recent court filings. From a report at The Washington Post:

The House said in court filings Monday that more impeachment charges against President Trump are possible based on the testimony they are seeking from his former White House counsel and grand jury material they want to review from the Russia investigation.

“The Committee is continuing to conduct its inquiry into whether the President committed other impeachable offenses,” attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee wrote. “The Committee’s investigations did not cease with the House’s recent impeachment vote."

That assertion was made in response to an argument from attorneys for the Department of Justice that the impeachment vote has undercut the rationale behind the House’s demands.

“It is far from clear that the Committee . . . will have any further role in the impeachment process at all,” they wrote. “The Committee has referred articles of impeachment to the House; the House has approved those articles; once the articles are transmitted to the Senate, the next steps are for the Senate to determine.”

Where is this heading? The Post provides insight:

The dueling memos came in two separation-of-powers lawsuits pending at the federal appeals court in Washington. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit next week will review the two cases in back-to-back hearings.

In the first case, House Democrats are asking the court to enforce a subpoena for Donald McGahn, who lawmakers have said is the “most important” witness in whether Trump obstructed justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The second case involves the House’s effort to gain access to certain secret grand jury material from Mueller’s probe.

Both lawsuits were filed before the formal start of the impeachment proceedings and last week’s House vote, which centered on Trump’s alleged effort to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a potential 2020 political rival.

Ahead of oral argument, set for Jan. 3, the D.C. Circuit judges asked lawyers for the House and the Justice Department whether their positions had changed following the vote to impeach Trump on Dec. 18. The judges in each case asked “whether the articles of impeachment render this case moot and whether expedited consideration remains necessary.” The lawyers were also asked to address whether lawmakers are seeking McGahn’s testimony and the grand jury evidence in connection to the impeachment inquiry — or to legislative oversight.

Joseph Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, seems to share the Democrats' view. He recently wrote a CNN op-ed titled "Pelosi should block impeachment trial until White House is forced to reveal all":

Let's call it the Pelosi Pause. There are no written rules governing the timetable for delivery of the House decision impeaching Donald Trump to the Senate, only custom. But then there were no written rules governing the timetable for a Senate decision on Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, only custom. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi follows Senator Mitch McConnell's playbook, Donald Trump will never stand trial in the Senate.

From a Democratic perspective that outcome would be preferable to a show trial, where the conclusion is not just foreordained, but announced beforehand by the Majority Leader after consulting with White House counsel. It's perfect: a rigged trial of a President accused of plotting a rigged election. We can only assume that Senator McConnell will be winking at the camera when he takes the oath of impartiality, "so help me God."

Pelosi need not wink, she only needs to wait. How long? Until November 2020, if necessary. McConnell claims that he has all the leverage because he has the votes in the Senate, and that, not the evidence described in the impeachment report, is all that counts. But it counts for nothing until the Senate receives the impeachment recommendation from the House.

Ellis suggests Pelosi might be holding a stronger hand of cards than does McConnell:

This is what Speaker Pelosi knows, and that could be why she is waiting. One could argue, and presumably pragmatic colleagues may be urging this course, that Pelosi and Senator Schumer should negotiate the best deal they can get and trust that some vestigial residue of bipartisanship still lingers in a few Republican senators, who might force McConnell to conduct a fair trial.

Dream on, Macduff. The Republican performance in the House impeachment proceedings made crystal clear that there is no Republican Party, only the Trump Party, which conducts itself according to Trumpian standards of civility and statesmanship, meaning like trained seals. Trusting in bipartisanship in McConnell's Senate is a surrender strategy.

Ellis has ideas about the course Democrats should follow, and we like his thinking:

Let me propose an alternative course for Pelosi. Apprise McConnell that she will forward the impeachment recommendation as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the three cases currently pending in the lower courts concerning the president's refusal to provide the documents and witnesses requested by the House Intelligence Committee and the tax returns requested by the Ways and Means Committee. The Supreme Court has already agreed to take the latter case. Chief Justice John Roberts can be urged to accelerate the schedule in all three cases, and report the verdicts prior to the customary end of the Supreme Court session in June.

In all three cases, White House lawyers have made the same argument; namely that the President has the constitutional authority to ignore all congressional requests, because he cannot be indicted, convicted, or investigated. In brief, as President he stands above the law. All the lower court rulings thus far have dismissed this argument as frivolous. Perhaps the cases can be bundled and decided by the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

If the decision follows the precedent set in Nixon v. United States (1974), where the Supreme Court ruled, quite quickly, that Nixon had to release the White House tapes, then witnesses and documents unavailable to the House will become available for a Senate trial. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans prefer a full and fair trial that includes such testimony and evidence. If McConnell refuses to yield to the political process that generates, Pelosi can stand pat until he caves. If never, so be it. It must be a full and fair trial or nothing.

Sackler family behind Purdue Pharma and OxyContin funneled more than $10 billion of corporate funds into overseas trusts and holding companies, in apparent effort to hide assets from opioid litigation

The family behind Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, funneled more than $10 billion in corporate funds to overseas trusts and holding companies as it faced heightened scrutiny for its role in the opioid crisis, according to a New York Times report. Luther Strange, former U.S. senator and Alabama attorney general, might be in the middle of this, considering reports that he is working with the Sackler family to encourage hasty settlements of opioid litigation.

Have the Sacklers been trying to hide their assets from plaintiffs' attorneys, who have filed lawsuits across the country? That seems to be the primary question, according to a report at The Week:

A new audit commissioned by Purdue Pharma found that during a time when more lawsuits were being filed against Purdue in connection with the opioid crisis, the Sackler family withdrew more than $10 billion from the company.

Members of the Sackler family have owned the company since the 1950s. Purdue's signature product, the opioid OxyContin, was approved in 1995, and the audit shows from 1995 to 2007, the company made $1.32 billion in payments to the family. From 2008 to 2017, when the company was under intense scrutiny for its alleged role in the opioid crisis, Purdue made $10.7 billion in payments. The audit shows that some of the money was moved to trusts and overseas holding companies, The New York Times reports.

More than 2,800 lawsuits have been filed against Purdue, and the Sackler family has said it will give at least $3 billion in cash as part of a settlement to resolve some of the suits filed by state and local governments. Purdue is going through a chapter 11 restructuring, and the report was filed in a New York bankruptcy court . . . .  In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said investigators "must see detailed financial records showing how much the Sacklers profited from the nation's deadly opioid epidemic. We need full transparency into their total assets and must know whether they sheltered them in an effort to protect against creditors and victims."

Here are other compelling questions regarding the Sacklers and opioid litigation: Has the family engaged in tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud? How deeply is Luther Strange involved in possible subterfuge? And is an audit that Purdue Pharma commissioned be believed? We do not yet have clear answers to those questions, but we do have insights from an article at U.S. News:

The Sackler family - owners of Purdue Pharma - transferred more than $10 billion in a decade from the OxyContin maker to its trusts and holding companies, the New York Times reported, citing a new audit commissioned by the drugmaker.

The audit, which was prepared by consulting firm Alix Partners, is likely to add further scrutiny on how much the Sackler family should pay to resolve lawsuits that Purdue Pharma face regarding the U.S. opioid epidemic, The New York Times added.

Lawsuits filed by state and local governments allege Purdue and the Sacklers contributed to a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 people since 1999 by aggressively marketing opioids while downplaying their addiction and overdose risks.

The audit showed that from 2008 through 2017, Purdue's payouts to the Sackler family totaled $10.7 billion, the report said. The auditors reported that they did not know how much cash distributed to the Sacklers was actually used to pay taxes.

If the Sacklers are trying to pull a con game, it looks like New York AG Letitia James will not be an easy mark:

Purdue reaped up to $13 billion in profits to the Sackler family, the U.S. states said in October, opposing efforts to halt lawsuits alleging the company and its owners helped fuel the epidemic.

"We are committed to holding the Sacklers responsible for the role they played in fueling the opioid crisis and will not stop fighting until we have achieved justice for victims," James said.

The drugmaker had filed for bankruptcy protection in September to pause thousands of lawsuits while it tries to build support for a proposed settlement it estimates is worth $10 billion. 

Alleged secret meeting between Alabama Power executives and U.S. Attorney Jay Town might have ensured North Birmingham bribery trial was rigged

Mark Crosswhite

Hard evidence exists that two Alabama Power executives met with Jay Town, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, at the height of the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal, sources tell Legal Schnauzer. It appears, sources say, the meeting was held to determine who would be the fall guy in the summer 2018 federal trial -- and that no one at Alabama Power or Southern Co. would be touched.

The Alabama Power execs in attendance allegedly were CEO Mark Crosswhite and outside counsel Mike Cole. The fall guy wound up being former Drummond Co. executive David Roberson, who was convicted along with former Balch Bingham partner Joel Gilbert. Evidence of a meeting with Jay Town grew from a $75-million lawsuit Roberson brought against Drummond.

Much of this is covered in a year-end post at ban.balch.com. Writes publisher K.B. Forbes:

Is Alabama Power untouchable? What secret deal did Crosswhite allegedly have with the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Jay E. Town?

More than that, did Crosswhite indeed have a secret meeting with Town and attorney Mike Cole in a downtown hotel in Birmingham? Is there hard evidence of, or witnesses to, that alleged secret meeting?

Evidence pointing to Alabama Power started surfacing because Gilbert wrote emails to keep power-company higher-ups updated on the Superfund scheme -- and he copied Roberson on those. Writes Forbes:

We learned recently that many of the emails that convicted felon and Balch-made millionaire Joel I. Gilbert wrote giving updates on the bribery/AstroTurf scheme in North Birmingham were sent to Alabama Power executives.

David Roberson, who was convicted of participating in the bribery scheme, was simply cc’d. (See the exhibit from the criminal trial below.)

Where is this story heading? That remains unclear, but it might rock the corporate/legal/political world in Alabama, and as Forbes notes, raises plenty of questions:

So was Balch Bingham’s siamese twin, sister-wife Alabama Power really calling the shots as a major backer of the money laundering entity Alliance for Jobs and the Economy (AJE)?

What would be the motive for Alabama Power to be allegedly involved in this corrupt campaign to suppress poor African-Americans from testing their toxic property and squash the tiny environmental group GASP?

Was Mark A. Crosswhite, the CEO of Alabama Power, and his peers concerned that Alabama Power’s polluting but money-making Miller Steam Plant would be the next target of GASP?

The Superfund bribery trial long has emitted foul odors, largely because it ended with a tiny handful of participants being held accountable, while most seemed to avoid scrutiny altogether. Writes Forbes:

Jay Town

We have never understood why Alabama Power never took the witness stand in the bribery trial during the summer of 2018 even though all the other major contributors to AJE did.

According to a report this April in The Washington Post, “Balch Bingham . . . has insisted that Gilbert, as a partner, acted alone and would not have raised any flags as he deposited $360,000 into the Robinson foundation account because the money went out at a moderate pace over many months. Roberson later said that 21 Balch Bingham attorneys ‘played at least some part’ in the anti-EPA campaign built on (former State Rep. Oliver) Robinson’s efforts."

Why weren’t the other 20 Balch Bingham attorneys investigated?

Then late last year, we learned that Jeffrey Bowers, a Lieutenant with the Columbiana Police Department in Alabama and the son of a retired Alabama Power executive was involved in the alleged “staged arrest” of a competitor of Balch Bingham, Burt Newsome, a sole-practitioner attorney who services and represents banks.

Clearly an apparent abuse under the color of law, why has there not been an active probe?

Second batch of Mueller memos from BuzzFeed News focuses heavily on Michael Cohen, Hope Hicks and infamous meeting at Trump Tower with Russian

Michael Cohen

Now that Donald Trump has been impeached on two Ukraine-related articles, it's likely many Americans have lost track of the really important scandal, the one involving Russia and the Mueller Report. The latest on that topic came recently with the release of a second batch of investigative memos -- called 302s -- from a BuzzFeed News request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The first release of memos came on Nov. 2 and had an Alabama flavor, showing that former U.S. Sen. and ex-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Donald Trump were part of a conspiracy to obtain stolen Democratic emails.

BuzzFeed News released the second batch of memos on Dec. 2, and a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to release 500 pages of memos each month, with that process likely playing out for roughly eight years. Senior investigative reporter Jason Leopold, who has led the FOIA action for BuzzFeed, says the releases could go well beyond 302s. Writes Leopold:

The 302s are just the beginning. BuzzFeed News is pursuing five separate lawsuits to pry loose all the subpoenas and search warrants that Mueller’s team executed, as well as all emails, memos, letters, talking points, legal opinions, and financial records it generated. In short, we asked for all communications of any kind that passed through the special counsel’s office. We also requested all the documents that would reveal the discussions among Attorney General Bill Barr, former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, and other high-ranking officials about whether to charge Trump with obstruction.

What is in the second batch of memos? Here is a summary from BuzzFeed:

On [Dec. 2], in response to a court order, the Justice Department released the second installment: summaries of FBI interviews spanning hundreds of pages. These summaries, known as “302 reports,” are some of the most important and highly sought-after documents from Mueller’s investigation. They contain numerous redactions, which BuzzFeed News will challenge in our ongoing lawsuit.

The interview summaries released [Dec. 2] include Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, former White House chief of staff John Kelly, former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, former communications director Hope Hicks, deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, former political aide Omarosa Manigault, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Here are highlights from key sections of the December release:


Michael Cohen said Trump family lawyers kept him from telling the truth

Cohen told FBI agents about negotiations to build a gleaming Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow, about how much Trump, who was then in the midst of a presidential campaign, knew about the negotiations, and about the false statement that Cohen later made to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about it all.

Cohen said that during the presidential campaign, he informed Trump that he had a discussion with a “woman from the Kremlin” about the plan to build the tower, according to a Nov. 20, 2018, summary of his interview with FBI agents and prosecutors from Mueller's team.

“Cohen told Trump he spoke with a woman from the Kremlin who had asked specific and great questions about Trump Tower Moscow, and that he wished Trump Organization had assistants that were that good and competent,” the FBI summary says.

He also said that in his letter to Congress about the development, he initially wrote that he had “limited contact with Russian officials.” But that line was struck from the letter. Cohen said he did not know who specifically struck it.


Rick Gates told the FBI that Paul Manafort urged him not to accept a plea deal

In an April 18, 2018 interview with FBI agents and prosecutors from Mueller's team, Gates said Paul Manafort told him in October or November 2017 that the White House would protect both of them and that it would be "stupid to plead" because they would get a "better deal down the road."

"Manafort said something like, 'I talked to Dowd. I've covered you at the White House' and added that a legal defense fund was coming and they were going to 'take care of us.' Manafort told Gates there were two funds out there. The first was called 'Patriot Defense Funds' and it covered White House staff. The other fund would cover anyone outside of the White House and Manafort and Gates would be '#1 and #2 on that list,'" according to a summary of Gates's interview.


Rod Rosenstein was "overcome with emotion" when he discussed Comey's firing

Following Comey’s firing on May 9, Christie told investigators that Trump called him and complained that he was “getting murdered,” presumably in the press, for the firing. Christie asked Trump whether he’d fired Comey because of Rosenstein’s memo, to which Trump replied “yes.” Christie then recommended that Trump “get Rod out there” to defend the decision. Trump said he liked the idea and would call Rosenstein.

On May 10, Rosenstein called Mueller — already thinking about appointing a special counsel. Rosenstein had learned from an FBI briefing that Trump was not a suspect and said he appointed Mueller due to how the public would react to the firing.

Rosenstein told the FBI that days before Mueller was appointed special counsel he was considered to replace Comey as FBI director. Mueller shared ideas about "what should be done with the FBI," which Sessions thought was "brilliant." Mueller interviewed for the FBI director's job on May 16 and met with Trump at the White, "but later decided to withdraw from consideration," Rosenstein told the FBI.

The next day, Mueller was appointed as special counsel. This previously undisclosed detail contradicts assertions by Trump that Mueller had applied for and was denied the job as FBI director.


Hope Hicks said Trump was “angry, surprised, and frustrated” when Mueller was appointed

Hicks, one of Trump's closest aides and former White House communications director, told investigators that Trump was “angry, surprised, and frustrated” when Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation in May 2017.

Hicks then mentioned Sessions, who had recused himself from the probe, followed by a short redacted section, but then she added: “The only other time she had seen Trump like that was when the Access Hollywood tape came out during the campaign.”


Hope Hicks told the FBI she was “shocked” by emails about the Trump Tower meeting

Hicks told federal investigators that she was “shocked” by emails between Donald Trump Jr. and others who attended a controversial meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Hicks, the former White House communications director, told the FBI that in June 2017, one year after the meeting took place, she reviewed emails about it and “thought they looked really bad,” according to an interview summary obtained by BuzzFeed News in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Senior Trump campaign officials attended the June 2016 meeting after being promised incriminating information on Clinton and after being told that it was part of the Russian government’s support of Trump. Emails released in July 2017 by Trump Jr. revealed that he responded enthusiastically to the offer before setting up the meeting, which became a focal point for both former special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators probing Russian election interference.

In a June 2017 meeting at the White House, Hicks, the president, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner discussed the Trump Tower meeting. “Kushner had a manila folder with documents with him and said to the President that they had found one thing that the President should know about, but it was not a big deal,” Hicks told the FBI.

Kushner then explained that he and other campaign officials had attended the meeting, “and started to open the folder when the President stopped him and said he did not want to know about it.” Hicks “speculated” that the envelope contained the emails she would later review, the interview summary says.

Representatives for Kushner and Trump Jr. didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kushner’s claim that the meeting was “not a big deal” echoes the frequent argument from Trump, his family, and his allies that the Trump Tower meeting was fruitless and focused on the issue of American adoptions of Russian children. But the documents released Monday to BuzzFeed News further reveal serious concerns within the White House about the meeting, as well as how those in Trump’s orbit wanted to handle the eventual release of the emails.

A note from BuzzFeed News: We want your help! If you see something in these memos, email reporter Jason Leopold at jason.leopold@buzzfeed.com or reach us securely at tips.buzzfeed.com.