"There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs...the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans." time.com/5936036/secret…
“It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”
"In a way, Trump was right."
"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort..."
The blatant "in your face" misframing is truly astonishing:
"They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
"An extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."
This is not "Fortifying"
"They got states to change voting systems & laws & helped secure hundreds of millions in public & private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers & got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time."
Remember this by Lawfare's Ben Wittes:
"We need to imagine as well how such a coalition should respond to the unthinkable: What if Trump wins?"
"The broader ambition should be a very public, cross-ideological network of lawyers and philanthropists..." lawfareblog.com/coalition-all-…
Norm Eisen, mentioned several times, had an earlier role.
He was a co-author of two Brookings Reports.
1) “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” authored by Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder, and Norman Eisen, on Oct. 10, 2017. brookings.edu/wp-content/upl…
They followed up with a 177-page second edition on Aug. 22, 2018, which also came with a lengthy appendix.
2-12-19: Nadler announced that Berke and Eisen, had been retained on a consulting basis as special oversight counsels in the impeachment hearings. brookings.edu/wp-content/upl…
On July 23, 2023, Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes Second Edition" justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
Eisen: This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.
Solomon went to WH on evening of Jan 19, 2021 where he reviewed docs.
Plan was to fully disseminate to public on morning of the 20th.
But Solomon received a call late that night from someone w/in WH asking for their return for "additional redactions."
Here's what happened next
"On his initiative and without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released, the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion notwithstanding."
We know from an email sent by George Kent, deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, that a $7mm bribe was paid to the office of Ukrainian chief prosecutor Vitaly Yarema some time in latter part of 2014.
Yarema's office issued a Dec 25, 2014 letter to the UK Courts - who had been investigating Zlochevsky - stating there was no longer an active Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky.
This letter forced the UK Court to drop case.
Yarema and his staff were fired ~one month later.
Yarema's replacement was Viktor Shokin - who reopened the Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky & Burisma.
At the time of the bribe, Hunter was — per Burisma — in charge of Burisma’s legal affairs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…
Two days after Joe Biden's newly disclosed Dec 4, 2015 conference call w/Hunter & Burisma owner Zlochevsky, Biden's staff crafted answers to potential questions Joe might get re: Hunter's involvement w/Burisma
One of those questions:
Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?
Biden's defenders like @RepDanGoldman have claimed Joe Biden didn't know these individuals - or anything about them.
But Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine wrote to Biden's staff on Dec 6, 2015, "I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky."
It's beyond any doubt that Joe Biden knew exactly who Zlochevsky was - and the significance of participating in a conference call w/Zlochevsky.
Biden's staff was obviously worried - and it's unlikely they even knew of the conference call w/Zlochevsky less than two days prior.
Here, Kent describes UK Investigation - and how it ended in late Dec 2014 because Yarema told UK Courts "there was no active case open on Zlochevsky"
Kent also mentions the $7mm bribe paid to Yarema's office.
Yarema resigned shortly after on Feb 9, 2015. Shokin replaced him.
There's another big problem as well. Goldman makes crazy claim that Shokin was an asset to Burisma - therefore Joe Biden's actions to fire Shokin ran counter to Burisma's interests:
"as Goldman articulated it...Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less."
2) Most are familiar w/sequence of events leading to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Víctor Shokin - as the direct result of political and financial pressure from then-VP Joe Biden.
This thread, which focuses on Shokin timeline, is a good refresher: